Re: octave on biowulf

[Tom Holroyd (NIH/NIMH) [E]]

As long as the CVS version number is different from the version on the website, 
that should avoid any future confusion.  Calling the CVS version 2.9.6 should 
be fine, and you don't have to increment the CVS version number each time, so 
long as there is no way to get 2.9.6 any place else.

Thanks.

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 21-Mar-2006, Tom Holroyd (NIH/NIMH) [E] wrote:
>
> | while on my machine, with the most recent version (also called 2.9.4, sadly),
>
> After 2.9.5, I plan to set the version number for the main branch in
> CVS to be 2.9.5-cvs (or something similar).  This way, the version
> number for the CVS archive will tell you that you are using something
> different from the last snapshot, but it won't tell you how much
> different it is.  I don't know how to completely solve this problem.
> It is impractical to change the version number after every batch of
> changes is committed to the CVS archive.
>
> jwe

--
Tom Holroyd, Ph.D.
I would dance and be merry,
Life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain.
       -- The Scarecrow