[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.9.15 --> 3.0

From: Quentin Spencer
Subject: Re: 2.9.15 --> 3.0
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:58:42 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)

Thomas Weber wrote:
Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 17:31 +0200 schrieb David Bateman:
Thomas Weber wrote:
Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 12:34 +0200 schrieb Soren Hauberg:
John W. Eaton skrev:
On  7-Oct-2007, Soren Hauberg wrote:

| So, what does that mean? Essentially we have to make some 3.0 release | candidate release about a week before 3.0 is actually released.
That's essentially what 2.9.14 was supposed to be, and (RSN) 2.9.15,
etc.  It's just that we keep finding things to fix or tweak.
What I was suggesting was really to make a release at some point. Call the a release candidate. And if nothing big comes up in the following week release that. Currently it seems like we keep on fixing bugs, and that nobody really knows when 3.0 is released. This isn't helpful to people who want to create binary distribution. If we want binary distributions on the day of the release, then we need to create an unofficial release sometime before the actual release. This is what I meant with a release candidate.

Did that make sense?
Are there objections to start with this process *now*? Bringing a
package with a new name into Debian can easily take more than a week[1].
So, we would like to package 2.9.14 as release candidate now, just to
have a package with the name octave3.0.


[1] It needs manual intervention outside the realm of packagers.

Does a RC release have to have a name like 3.0RC1? Can't we just say
that 2.9.15 is 3.0RC1? Is that sufficient for Debian?

Sure. In theory we could upload the 2.0 sources as octave3.0 (though
that would be *really* unfair to the our archive's gatekeepers). Package
names in Debian don't need to match the actual source package name. I just proposed 2.9.14 because it's already out.
Obvious question: how about other distributions? Notably Fedora?

Well, it's possible to do the same thing in Fedora. Things are already frozen for Fedora 8, which will be released in a few weeks. However, Fedora does have an "updates" repository, and I assumed I would push a 3.0 release when it's available to updates. The bigger short term concern is getting a working version of octave-forge. I think Orion was close, but was waiting for 2.9.15 and a corresponding octave-forge release. After this is done and we verify that things appear stable, I would we would also push updates for Fedora 7 as well. I don't think we should hold up a 3.0 release just for the distributions. I would think most users of free software know it takes some time for major new releases of any program to make their way into the distributions.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]