[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp
|
From: |
John W. Eaton |
|
Subject: |
Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp) |
|
Date: |
Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:55:21 -0500 |
On 14-Feb-2009, Thomas Weber wrote:
| What alternative do you have in mind? Releasing 3.0 and then nothing
| until 3.2?
Yes, except for 3.0.x releases that fix regressions or other truly
egregious bugs that are relatively safe to fix.
At the same time, I'd like to see more frequent releases.
What is the problem with that?
jwe
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), (continued)
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), Søren Hauberg, 2009/02/12
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), John W. Eaton, 2009/02/12
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/13
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), Søren Hauberg, 2009/02/13
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), Rafael Laboissiere, 2009/02/13
- bug tracking (was: Re: patching the stable branch (was: ...)), John W. Eaton, 2009/02/13
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), Thomas Weber, 2009/02/14
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp), Thomas Weber, 2009/02/14
- Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp),
John W. Eaton <=