New package: FMin v1.0.0

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: FMin
• Repository: https://github.com/kagalenko-m-b/FMin.jl
• Created by: @kagalenko-m-b
• Version: v1.0.0
• Commit: 91a913f3228e0b97d7ddd77e66cf6ac9e70ec97f
• Reviewed by: @kagalenko-m-b
• Reference: Trigger Julia Registrator kagalenko-m-b/Fminbnd.jl#2

[github-actions]

Your new package pull request does not meet the guidelines for auto-merging. Please make sure that you have read the General registry README and the AutoMerge guidelines. The following guidelines were not met:

• Name is not at least 5 characters long

Note that the guidelines are only required for the pull request to be merged automatically. However, it is strongly recommended to follow them, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

After you have fixed the AutoMerge issues, simply retrigger Registrator, which will automatically update this pull request. You do not need to change the version number in your Project.toml file (unless of course the AutoMerge issue is that you skipped a version number, in which case you should change the version number).

If you do not want to fix the AutoMerge issues, please post a comment explaining why you would like this pull request to be manually merged. Then, send a message to the #pkg-registration channel in the Julia Slack to ask for help. Include a link to this pull request.

Since you are registering a new package, please make sure that you have also read the package naming guidelines: https://pkgdocs.julialang.org/v1/creating-packages/#Package-naming-guidelines

---

If you want to prevent this pull request from being auto-merged, simply leave a comment. If you want to post a comment without blocking auto-merging, you must include the text [noblock] in your comment. You can edit blocking comments, adding [noblock] to them in order to unblock auto-merging.

[kagalenko-m-b]

I believe FMin is a good name for this package, because it is as literal as possible translation to Julia of a popular and well-known Fortran routine http://www.netlib.org/fmm/fmin.f
[noblock]

[goerz]

This actually seems okay to me, but you'll have to wait three days and then ping the slack for a manual merge

[noblock]

[goerz]

[noblock] @kagalenko-m-b Can you try retriggering this registration (just add another @JuliaRegistrator register comment to kagalenko-m-b/Fminbnd.jl#2).

In theory, it should then merge automatically because I applied the "name similarity is okay" tag. Otherwise, we'll have to ping a registry maintainer for a manual merge. But I'm kinda curious if retriggering works.

[goerz]

Oh, never mind, there's also "Name is not at least 5 characters long", which I can't override

[noblock]

[aplavin]

Does "fmin" always mean this same algorithm in practice? For example, in scipy.optimize.fmin.
Btw, the first google result on "fmin" is C++ std::fmin that does a completely different thing.

Anyway, I would suggest something like "NetlibFMin" or "FMinNetlib" to avoid potential ambiguities.

[DilumAluthge]

I would also prefer a longer and more descriptive name.

[kagalenko-m-b]

Does "fmin" always mean this same algorithm in practice? For example, in scipy.optimize.fmin. Btw, the first google result on "fmin" is C++ std::fmin that does a completely different thing.

Netlib's fmin is clearly the oldest of those. In addition, there already is an fmin repo on Github, that contans Fortran 90 port of the original Fortran 77 routine. It's that repository that put me in mind to publish the literal fmin port that I have written before.

[carstenbauer]

I tend to agree with the others here that a more descriptive name would be preferable. As far as I can see, "fmin" isn't a (well known) package or library name in any of the mentioned languages but only a (sub-)functionality. On top of that, as pointed out by @aplavin, it can even mean different things. Therefore, I would not make an exception to our general rule here.

[LilithHafner]

Happy to register this package under a more descriptive name, though that will need a new PR.

[goerz]

Follow-up in #119764