Re: octave on biowulf

[John W. Eaton]

On 21-Mar-2006, Tom Holroyd (NIH/NIMH) [E] wrote:

| 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.

I don't think that will solve the problem because someone who installs
the CVS version could easily mistake what they have for 2.9.6 when
they really have some CVS version between 2.9.5 and 2.9.6.  So if they
report a bug after the 2.9.6 snapshot is available, we don't really
know what version they have.  It is essentially the same problem as
now, but the version number is relative to a future snapshot instead
of the previous one.  At least if we tag the CVS version with "-cvs",
we will know to ask more about the date it was checked out/updated/built.

jwe