[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: moving toward a 3.0 release
From: |
Søren Hauberg |
Subject: |
Re: moving toward a 3.0 release |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:10:47 +0200 |
ons, 27 09 2006 kl. 14:56 -0400, skrev John W. Eaton:
> We haven't discussed it too much, but I expect that 3.0.X would only
> contain bug fixes. 3.1 could contain new features. If we make any
> major changes to the internals we might want to bump the major version
> number. But I don't think we have to be too strict about any of
> this. I'd be happy to hear other opinions.
I don't really know much about this stuff, but here's my opinion.
I basicly think 3.0.x could contain anything that doesn't break both API
and ABI. I think it's a bit annoying that I have to recompile
octave-forge when I upgrade octave. So it would be great if we could
make sure the ABI is the same across 3.0.x releases. Then we could move
to 3.1.x (or 3.2.x?) when the ABI and API needs changing.
Søren
- moving toward a 3.0 release, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, Søren Hauberg, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, Søren Hauberg, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release,
Søren Hauberg <=
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, Søren Hauberg, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, David Bateman, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, Dmitri A. Sergatskov, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, David Bateman, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, Dmitri A. Sergatskov, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, David Bateman, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/27
- Re: moving toward a 3.0 release, David Bateman, 2006/09/27