Re: moving toward a 3.0 release

[John W. Eaton]

On 27-Sep-2006, David Bateman wrote:

| I see this as a pity as I feel there are two things needed for wide
| acceptance of octave; these being a good windows installer (ie an exe
| and one that doesn't suffer from the cygwin sjlj exception issue), and
| graphic handles. I'd like to eventually see classes but think that can wait.

I would also like to have improved graphics, but I should also say
that I'm not expecting 3.0 to have everything or be perfect.  But I
think the current 2.9.x is much better than 2.1.73, so it would be
good to have a real release relatively soon.

Or, we could just declare 2.9.x as a "testing" version and continue on
with snapshots until we have integrated all the features we want.

If others think that my timing for this release is bad, then I'd be
willing to consider having someone else take over the job of "release
manager" for Octave.  That person would then have the job of keeping
things more or less on schedule, deciding what projects are merged for
which releases, merging bug fixes into released versions while
development continues on the main branch, when to have feature freezes
and make release branches in the CVS archive, etc.  We could follow
the model of the GCC project (or some other, as long as it works).

jwe