Re: Octave 2.2.x Was: A group in Norway ...

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:41:22PM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
> So it probably makes sense to come up with some way to drop the 2.0.x
> code (which is quite ancient now) without putting everyone on the

No, just relabel some directories and add an appropriate README so that
people do understand that 2.0 is for backwards compatibility with itself,
and very old/basic m#$lab code. No reason to remove it, just set
expectations straight in terms of maintenance (zip) or bug fixes (idem).

In fact, that has been the status quo for quite some time, so it would be
only a small change to make that more obvious.

> bleeding edge.
> 
> Which would be better:  a "stable" release or just going with the
> "works pretty well" model?

I wasn't too comfortable with what Joao suggested. I think you are right in
requesting minimum standards to ensure code quality, as well as
maintainability.  That said, what do we need before we can call 2.1.49 a
newborn 2.2.0 and point to Andy when it breaks [ just kidding ]?  Seriously,
what is missing from 2.2.0?

Dirk

-- 
Don't drink and derive. Alcohol and analysis don't mix.