octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Release process (was release 3.2.1)


From: Tatsuro MATSUOKA
Subject: Re: Release process (was release 3.2.1)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:48:33 +0900 (JST)

Hello



--- "Robert T. Short" wrote:

> 
> ---------------------------------
>     S淡ren Hauberg wrote:  
> fre, 10 07 2009 kl. 15:06 -0700, skrev Robert T. Short:  
>       
> So are you suggesting that we don't have a stable branch?  I guessthat is one 
> way!  It certainly
> works for the developer community butnot for the general user community.  Is 
> it not a goal to
> provide asolid package for non-developer users?    
>     
> Not quite what I meant. Right now we have two branches:  * The 3.2.x stable 
> branch. This is the
> one most users are on.  * The 3.3.x development branch. This is the one 
> developers are mostly   
> using; it's the 'fun' branch.Some time before 3.4.0 is to be released then we 
> will have the
> followingbranches (assuming we use the same approach as we do now)  * The 
> 3.2.x stable branch. 
> * The 3.4.0-beta branch, where only bog fixes are allowed.  * The 3.5.x 
> development branch,
> where the fun stuff happens.My suggestion was not to make the 3.5.x branch. 
> This will probably
> slowdown development somewhat, but it will ensure that people on 
> thedevelopment branch serves as
> beta testers. This was essentially howthings were done before the switch to 
> Mercurial.S淡ren  
> OK.� This makes more sense to me.
> 
> The problem I am having is calling the 3.2.x branch stable.� It 
> isn'tstable.� After it
has
> existed for a while it should become stable, butit isn't stable yet.

First I appreciate Jaroslav for his extensive works on octave.

I also think so.  I feel that octave 3.2.x in the future will be suitable 
called stable, however 
current release 3.2.0  is too fast to be call stable.

During octave releases were 2.x.x

2.9.x was development release.
2.1.x was testing release
2.0.c was stable release but obsolate

I feel that the above is reasonable for me. The previous model is not so far 
from what Robert proposed

Regards

Tatsuro

--------------------------------------
Power up the Internet with Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/toolbar/


reply via email to

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