Online Developer Meeting (2020-11-10): Difference between revisions

Line 43: Line 43:
* One of the last hosting services offering Mercurial (hg) support
* One of the last hosting services offering Mercurial (hg) support
* Slow and many commercials, [https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/project-web/commit_browser buggy UI].
* Slow and many commercials, [https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/project-web/commit_browser buggy UI].
====== Clumsy package development / releasing ======
* The procedure is documented in the wiki: [[Reviewing Octave Forge packages]]
** Experience of Kai after a few releases:
*** An "easy release" with basic installation/functionality checking/uploading takes me about '''20-30 minutes'''.
*** If something is wrong with the tarballs another 20-20 minutes.
*** Version numbers are tracked in too many locations (DESCRIPTION, configure.ac, ...)
*** Octave Forge claims "high quality"
**** No OF admin can enforce it within 20-30 minutes (e.g. lack of package domain knowledge).
**** Users find many bugs despite this "high quality" release check procedures.
**** Why not just automatically release packages (pkg-index)?
* Octave Forge suggests extensions to the official [https://octave.org/doc/v5.2.0/Creating-Packages.html Octave package format]
** [https://octave.sourceforge.io/templates/Makefile Maintainers Makefile]
*** Release tarballs must be manually created and uploaded.
*** Avoids automatic tarball creation (see [https://github.com/gnu-octave/pkg-example pkg-example]).  Better practice?
** The OF [http://hg.code.sf.net/p/octave/example-package/file/tip/plain-package example-package] is rather complicated, avoid advertising it any longer?


===== Savannah =====
===== Savannah =====