Randy, that was my point exactly :) // T
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:38:28 PM UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Parkinson's law of triviality > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality> > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Randy Zwitch <randy....@fuqua.duke.edu > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 3:12:36 AM UTC-5, Tomas Lycken wrote: >>> >>> Also, the naming discussion here is not *only* on naming; it's also on >>> the possibility of including *more things *in the package. I would be >>> all for having a package like Palettes.jl, which would include both >>> NoveltyColors.jl and other palettes, but that's not in conflict with the >>> current package - it's an extension, that might happen tomorrow, in a year, >>> or never at all, depending on whether someone actually finds it useful >>> enough to implement it. >>> >> >> People are free to extend my package as much as they like, or create a >> wrapper package that aggregates all these different packages. Not sure why >> that needs a waiting period for my package. >> >> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:22:21 PM UTC-5, cormu...@mac.com >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm using [ColorSchemes.jl]( >>> https://github.com/cormullion/ColorSchemes.jl) for my own purposes, but >>> I'm happy to rename it if someone else wants the name. >> >> >> Is this on METADATA? I thought I had checked, but maybe I had missed. If >> so, then it makes my package a bit redundant, as I could've submitted a PR >> to your package. >> >> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:39:09 PM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm still pretty unclear on what makes a color scheme a novelty. >>> >>> >> I don't know, it seemed like having a plot based on the colors from the >> Grand Budapest Hotel or an outfit Beyonce wore would be a novelty, as >> opposed to something like ColorBrewer which explicitly tries to provide >> schemes that improve cartography. Since Tim has a majority of the commits >> on Color.jl and he thought it was an idea that stood on its own (per my >> reading into his approval comment above), I went with it. I really didn't >> think it would be this contentious. >> >> >> >> > >
