Re: Change for OctaveForWindows in Octave Wiki

[Tatsuro MATSUOKA]

--- Rupert Swarbrick <address@hidden> wrote:
> I've just made a couple of small fixes (mostly spelling, which makes it
> the first time I've really used the Firefox spell-check thing!)
> 
> There are two things I'm still not sure about:
> 
> (1) The description of the two different versions is contradictory.
> Surely one version can't be recommended while on the next line there is
> a notice saying "you probably want this" about a different version.
> 
> I understand the reasoning behind the old stable version and the more
> feature-complete unstable one, but I'm not sure what the correct
> phrasing is in this case.
This was my mistake. I really want to decribe as jwe (perhaps) wrote in the 
download page. 
The 2.1.x are well tested, reliable, but also quite old and no longer 
maintained(''stable'')
This has been modified again.
I modified it to be simple.
 
> (2) The "Notes" section of 1.2 Octave Workshop needs some sort of
> change, but I don't really understand the sentence. Does it mean:
> 
> "This is no longer maintained because mingw (on which it depends) does
> not contain the 2.9.x series of octave."
Octave Workshop package includes the mingw version of Octave 2.9.4.  
This octave was unstable.  Since then, the new mingw octave has not been coming 
up for a long time. 
Therefore maintainer (who was not developer of 2.9.4) abandan maintanance.
> 
> ----
> 
> In a more general comment, if the Cygwin install is the most standard,
> maybe we should move that to be the first option, along with a note
> above the list and maybe with "short install instructions" before the
> more detailed ones?
Perhaps you thought the above  due to my first mistake.

Octave 2.1.73 is stable but obsolate. So that 2.9.xx is better to be the first.

Thank you so much.

Tatsuro
 


--------------------------------------
Easy + Joy + Powerful = Yahoo! Bookmarks x Toolbar
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/toolbar/