Hi,
I want to raise a "policy question". Currently contributed function
packages can decide "for themselves" whether they want to be added
somewhere in the gretl menus. IIRC this was borrowed from the gretl add-ons.
For the outsider/user this blurs the distinction between core gretl and
the contributions, which is exactly the purpose of the mechanism.
However, there is a difference in the amount of testing that goes into a
functionality in core gretl compared to the testing that a function
package receives. (I'm talking about the testing done by the code
authors, not about the quite superficial checks that Allin, Jack, and I
are doing when moving a submitted package to the public server. And I am
also talking about packages written by myself, this is not meant as
criticizing others.)
So the problem is that to the user package bugs would look like gretl
bugs, which makes gretl look less reliable than it is.
My first suggestion therefore is to include the "author" field not only
in the package list in the "on server" window, but also in the list
window displaying the locally installed packages. This should make it
more transparent that these are _contributed_ packages, and not core
gretl. (Also the ego of the authors might benefit a little.)
Secondly, my proposal is that before a package is allowed to appear in
the menus it would need to pass some additional checks. For example,
this check could be provided by replicating in the example script some
known-good result.
BTW, there is a real-world experience behind my suggestion. Of course
this policy change would not prevent all bugs; for example I remember a
bug affecting (some) results in the SVAR addon, and that addon was
certainly tested quite thoroughly. But still I think it could help.
So -- what do you think?
thanks,
sven