Re: moving toward a 3.0 release

[Bill Denney]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> As much as I would like to have graphics functions that are more
> compatible with Matlab, I don't think we can do it for 3.0, at least
> not if we want th release to happen in the near future.
>   
I agree with this, and I think that for the graphics features to be 
relatively well tested, that would take a somewhat long time on its 
own.  I agree that (as you say later) this is a 3.1 feature.
> If people do want to have a stable release by the end of the year,
> then I think we need to go with more or less what we have.  I think
> the new graphics features would be too risky to add at this point.  I
> think it would make more sense to have a release soon, then plan for
> something like
>
>   3.1  includes graphics objects, perhaps by mid 2007
>   3.2  class objects, maybe by the end of 2007
>   
To me, this sounds like an excellent timetable.

Bill