Re: Science linguistics and debian-science SVN repository at alioth
On Tue, 6 May 2008, David Bremner wrote:
Speaking as the maintainer of all packages in pkg-science ( all 3 :-)
), I don't mind any sort of merging plan.
That's good. ;-)
But I understood from
previous mails from C. Prudhomme that he (and others?) preferred to
keep pkg-scicomp a more focussed effort on scientific computation (in
the computer science usage of that term).
Couldn't this be apprached by using a subdirectory "computation" ?
That's what I mean with structure. (BTW, would libblitz++ fit into
this field or not?) I also have some trouble to draw a really good
borderline between computation and other fields of science.
If that is an accurate
statement (Christophe?) then using pkg-science as the umbrella group
seems to be consistent with the original intent. It is not completely
reasonable to compare the activity in pkg-scicomp and pkg-science
since the latter is much younger.
Well, as I said several times: I don't care about the name. I would
like to see a common repository for people who feel "at home" here on
this list. If it makes more sense to move those scicomp packages to
a common repository it is fine for me as well - there is just more work
to do in this case which might be a show stopper to get it completed.
I just have a problem to decide what belongs to scicomp and what not
and thus I would simply broaden the meaning.
An alternative approcah would be to declare scicomp as a separate
project in comparison to DebiChem and Debian-GIS which is a clearly
structured group that handles in their own field and properly group
maintains their packages. This would come close to my overall goal
to create specific teams for every science which might end in an
autonomous CDD. My view on Debian-Science is to give those sciences
a home that are sparse regarding man power to maintain their own
healthy project. In my view Biology, Chemestry and Geographical
Information Systems just reached these goal and I would be happy if
we could "release" more and more children out of the common home to
grow up independently.
If the latter is the case for SciComp I would like to learn more
about it, which is the exact scope, are there any subtopics, who
are the members of the team, etc.
If there is to be any sort of reorganization, let me put in a plea for
git (hg or bzr are probably also lovely, but I already more or less
understand git) as VCS. svn-buildpackage is the suxors when not
connected to the internet, and these days my out-of-office internet
access is via GPRS (not even 3G). But honestly, I can live with svn
if I have to. Tool flamewars are for losers :-).
I was about to write in my initial mail that I would like to stay
those VCS flamers out of the way if they don't are willing to do
the work but just want to advertise their pet VCS. If you are the
one who just did the work and decide for git it is fine for me.
(Well, I'm perfectly new to git, but have heard good things and
don't want to block progress - but I would hate a flamewar between
SVN superior VCSs.)
So if people agree: "Yes we should focus on a common VCS and we
want to maintain packages as a group in this repository" and your
are doing the work to implement it it is your choice (Debian is
a DoOcracy). I just want to hear the point of the SciComp crew
first whether they feel happy with this move or whether they are
some kind of "grown up child" out of the Debian Science home
which works separately on its own (and I wish good luck for this).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: