Re: 4.0 vs 3.8 again

[Salva Ardid]

El Dimarts, 19 de novembre de 2013, a les 17:11:40, c. va escriure:

> On 19 Nov 2013, at 16:16, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden> 
wrote:
> > I know we've had this discussion before, but I want to revisit it
> > again. I know this is bikeshedding[1], so this will be my final word
> > on the matter, I promise. Or at least publicly, if anyone wants to
> > keep arguing this with me, we can do so while only the NSA watches.
> > 
> > I really think the next Octave release should be called "Octave 4".
> > Not "3.8".
> > 
> > I will restate my case, with a few extra bits of data that we now
> > 
> > have:
> >   1) Gauging by the demand for it as well as the development buzz
> >   
> >      that it has spurred, the GUI alone is gonna be *huge*. It's such
> >      a big feature that a change in the major revision is warranted,
> >      even if our other big features like JIT compiling or OpenGL are
> >      still betaish.
> >   
> >   2) It's good marketing. "Octave 4" is a simple, single number to
> >   
> >      remember. It's easy to convey to people which Octave version has
> >      the GUI, and which Octave version started to make a point of
> >      also making timely Windows and Mac OS X binary releases.
> >   
> >   3) The ".0" part of "4.0" gives an indication that we are trying
> >   
> >      something big and new here. Then 4.2 and beyond will start
> >      adding more polish, perhaps JIT or classdef, but for now the
> >      ".0" will express to our users that this is a major change. I
> >      hope that this will earn us some leeway and indulgence from our
> >      users if not everything is great, as long as the GUI is great.
> >   
> >   4) I would like to have a website redesign to go along with the new
> >   
> >      release, and a big "4" would look very nice in this redesign.
> > 
> > I won't be terribly disappointed if we do decide to go with "3.8", but
> > "Octave 4" just sounds so nice.
> > 
> > - Jordi G. H.
> > 
> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeshedding
> 
> personally I don't think 3.8 vs 4.0 makes much difference, but I do
> prefer 3.8 slightly over 4.0.
> 
> the main reason is that, although the GUI is a huge difference it is
> still terribly buggy, at least on OSX where I am testing, I'd prefer
> a new major release to be more stable.
> 
> I like the idea of the big 4 on the website,
> just add "coming soon, stay tuned!" and it will create even more hype.
> 
> also this will give more sense to the news window and convince a few users
> to leave it open and it's a good way to ask for donations, "4.0 is almost
> done, it will be out sooner if you contribute!"
> 
> 
> just my .02€
> 
> c.

>From a user point of view, 4.0 is definitely more appealing... said that, I 
recall all the criticism kde received when it buggyly transitioned to 4.0, and 
then it took some time before good reviews came back

Why don't invest energy on getting stable gui, jit, etc and then release it? 
This could be an option, unless it would take not few months but ~1-2 years to 
make this really happen...

Again, only from a user point of view...