Re: [OctDev] complex error function

[Steven G. Johnson]

On 11/21/12 11:11 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> It matters from a maintainership and code ownership perspective. If
> you're just making a library, why not actually just create such a
> library and you go through the hassle of making releases instead of us
> gluing your code into Octave? I sure don't want to have to keep two
> different copies of the same code in different codebases each with its
> own diverging set of bugs. Then we can maintain the Octave-specific
> wrapper ourselves and you can keep maintaining your library.

I certainly don't want you to have a diverging set of bugs; regardless 
of how this is incorporated into Octave or OF (assuming it is), I would 
hope that you would contact me regarding bug reports and patches.

On my side, I will plan to notify you if I have any bugfixes or other 
relevant updates on my end.  I have already been doing that for SciPy.

As I said in my other email, it is no trouble for me to provide a 
library; this is just a four-line Makefile on my end (well, a bit(!) 
larger if I use autotools, but that is probably overkill).  However, the 
problem on your end is then getting people to install a new library that 
no one has ever heard of.

The alternative would be to do what SciPy is doing: include my 
Faddeeva.cc file verbatim, write your Octave-specific glue in a separate 
file, and incorporate upstream changes as needed.

--SGJ