Re: OctaveForge for project of the month

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Søren Hauberg <address@hidden>
> To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> Cc: Carnë Draug <address@hidden>; Octave Help <address@hidden>; Octave Forge 
> <address@hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: OctaveForge for project of the month
> 
> 
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>>  Here are the reasons:
>> 
>>  1) visit http://octave.sourceforge.net/functions_by_package.php and 
> _patiently_ scroll down;
>>  2) if you are patient enough, you'll notice that the text left margin 
> moves to the right, i.e. at the top the text is left-justified as it should 
> be, 
> bu then the text moves to the right;
>>  3) when I was taught by various people how to develop and test the code, I 
> was explained that number of test cases is typically (quite) big, but at 
> least 
> _obvious_ corner cases should be tested, and the number of obvious corner 
> cases 
> is typically _much_ less than the full number of test cases;
>>  4) in this particular instance there are just _two_ corner cases: top and 
> bottom, and the developers didn't bother to check even them.
>> 
>>  So, because of _gross_ disrespect for very basic QA guidelines on the side 
> of the developers I am fully opposed to nominating this project for 
> "project of the month".
> 
> Sergei,
> 
> as the author of the code in question I do apologize: I am truly sorry that I 
> forced you into using code that I developed in my (non-existing) spare-time. 
> I 
> really did not mean to force you to depend on this code. Please forgive me! I 
> promise I will never ever release any code code that you could be interested 
> in 
> using, such that you shall never be forced to use my terrible code again. 
> Please 
> accept my apology for making something that serves a practical purpose, yet 
> is 
> imperfect. I shall never be practical again!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Søren
>

Did you try to write and discuss the spec first ?

As I wrote, correct implementation of you intended (if I understand you 
correctly - I did carefully look into 'pkg.m') is impossible without the 
namespace issue resolution.

I.e. _both_ packaging and namespace implementations should be spec'ed in 
conjuction with each other.

And what I wrote in quoted by you reply is a more a less cosmetic issue which 
immediately pops into one's eyes; lack of specs are the _core_ Octave 
methodology development problem.

And, awarding "project of the month" to a project suffering from lack of spec 
is _not_ in order


Regards,
  Sergei.