Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas Weber <address@hidden>
> To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 1:28 PM
> Subject: Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
> 
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:52:59PM -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>>  OK, looking deeper I've found:
>>  "
>>  miscellaneous needs octave >= 3.6.0
>>  "
>> 
>>  which, of course, is not my case.
>> 
>>  ...
>> 
>>  The times were good when you guys were releasing a _bundle_ compatible with 
> certain Octave version.
> 
> Wrong list, octave-forge is maintained elsewhere. I am however 100%
> positive that no one will step in your way of testing individual
> packages and creating a bundle from them.
> 
>     Thomas
>

I like your answer. I think Mathworks sales and marketing folks will like it 
even more - an excellent bullet why customers should _not_use Octave.

Because they will spend their valuable time figuring out which package versions 
are (in)compatible with which Octave versions.

Well, it took me several years to convince Octave developers to use bug 
tracking system instead of just a mailing list.

I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave and packages 
should be released in conjunction with each other.


Regards,
  Sergei.