Re: 3.2.0

[Robert T. Short]

clear classes is very important.  If you make a change to the class structure, you will have to exit octave to use it.

On the other hand, it took me 1/2 hour this morning to do the bulk of it.  I need some help, but will post a help request tonight and I expect the clear classes will be done, at least to a reasonable level.

As for the "stable" archive, whatever works best.  It would be nice to get the process down sooner or later though.

Bob

Jaroslav Hajek wrote:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Robert T. Short
<address@hidden> wrote:
  

Just a question.  What are the criteria for a release?  I am not arguing
about the release, just want to know what the process is.

I have a few OOP items that need to be done, but the only real thing that
should be finished before releasing 3.2 is some documentation and the clear
classes function.  How does this fit in?

    

What should "clear classes" do? Is the OOP seriously less usable
without it? If not, I'd leave it for a later release. Is this going to
require API changes?

AS for the docs, they surely deserve an ocean of improvements, but I
don't see it as a stopper now. IMHO, the OOP support in 3.2.0 is to be
regarded as experimental, and so it does not much mind that the docs
is incomplete.

  

Also, Jaroslav seemed to think that nobody liked the stable repository
thing.  I didn't get that impression at all.  I am not sure we ever agreed
on the front-to-back process, but I thought the basic notion was pretty
agreed on.  It seems to me he should just do it in a way that seems to work
for him using the stable repository.  If there are problems, we will just
have to do something else.

    

That was just my impression, we can surely discuss it further. But
right now I'm inclined to use the older, "proven" way to prevent
further delays.

regards