Octave 2.2.x Was: A group in Norway ...

[Andy Adler]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
>
> The problem with making a stable release is that I don't want to waste
> my time patching it with fixes that I have already made to the
> development version.  I tried that before and it didn't work for me.
> It took too much energy to keep up with fixes for the stable release.
> After only a short while it was not nearly as simple as making diffs
> from the development CVS and applying them to the stable sources.  If
> someone good would seriously consider taking over a stable release,
> then I would consider it.

I volunteer to maintain a stable release. I'm not sure I have all
the required knowledge, so I would need to ask John for help,
occasionally.

I would limit my involvement to fixing bugs. People who want
new features would need to use the devel version

> Another possiblity is to do away with the 2.0.x series and just have
> one.  It would not be labeled "stable" or "development" or anything
> else.  Then if you want Octave, you get the latest version.  We would
> make releases when we felt comfortable that things were mostly OK and
> people who want to work with the latest sources would use CVS.

This is a fairly reasonable model when the changes being made are
incremental, as has been the case for the last year or so.
If you would like to reimplement matrix support completely,
or some other major change, then it definitely makes sense to split
to a new series.

Andy