Re: moving toward a 3.0 release

[John W. Eaton]

On 27-Sep-2006, David Bateman wrote:

| God please don't point the finger at me...

I'm not pointing fingers or asking you to do more.  I am saying that
if people want Octave to improve more rapidly, or have better web
pages (some progress on this front already, thanks Bill) or whatever,
that we need more people involved.  I don't think I do a great job of
being the release manager, so I'd be willing to consider having
someone else (or some group) take on that job.  But then you will need
to be able to merge patches to the release branch of the CVS archive
to fix important bugs for point releases.

| feedback from Bill and Shai on what they think is needed, set a feature
| freeze date for octave 3.0 but not at 2.9.9, call 2.9.9 a testing
| release and the first release after the feature freeze call it 3.0rc1.

My plan was to continue making 2.9.x releases until we decide one is
ready to be 3.0.  I see no reason to change the numbering scheme.

| The only question in the above is when is the feature freeze. Can we
| just wait for feedback from Bill and Shai before fixing that date?

Sure.

In any case, do we all agree that it would be OK to call 2.9.9 a
"testing" release?  Should we move 2.1.73 to "stable" or just have
2.9.9 replace it as the "testing" version?  If any annoying bugs show
up in 2.9.9 we can quickly make another 2.9.x snapshot.  I guess I
would at least like to get the "testing" version closer to what is
currently the main "development" version.

jwe