Re: Depreciated Functions

[David Bateman]

Quentin Spencer a écrit :

> Paul Kienzle wrote:
>
> > I would like octave-forge to be cruft free for the 3.0 release, so it 
> > should depend on functions and syntax in 2.9.x.
> >
> > There is a lot of cruft in the C++ functions for supporting older 
> > versions of octave.  Basically anything in #if is suspicious.
>
>
>
> There was a discussion a while back on the Octave-forge list about 
> branching Octave forge so that the main CVS could follow 2.9.x and 
> prepare for 3.0. I have only a minimum knowledge of using CVS--has 
> this been done, or how does one go about doing it? If some of us were 
> to begin making 2.9.x changes could someone go back and branch from an 
> older release? As far as I'm concerned, octave-forge is functional 
> enough on 2.1.71--I suggest we move ahead and only make bug fixes for 
> 2.1.x if something critical comes up.
>
> -Quentin

Should Soren's packaging system be taken into account in any clean-up of 
octave-forge. What I'd like to see is perhaps one last monolithic 
release for 3.0 and then everything cut up CPAN style...

Cheers
David