Re: 2.9.10, finally?

[Shai Ayal]

I think it might be a good thing to introduce these rather drastic changes. This will enable us to get feedback and improve the situation. I know that currently the stable version is "obsolete" and the development version is the recommended install, but maybe it's time to change it.
I did not follow the development closely enough to know whether non-graphics related bugs that were fixed are very important. If this is the case, maybe release 2.9.10 w/o graphics changes as a recommended release, stating that no back-porting of bug-fixes will be made (for lack of developer time), and immediately release 
2.9.11 with graphics changes and continue from there.

On a more ground to earth theme -- one of the best features gnuplot has going for it is the ability for off-screen rendering (e.g. using without a x11 terminal). I am not sure matlab has this feature at all. So we need to define how to do this in octave. It would be a shame to loose this feature. My questions:
1) If it is possible in matlab. how is it done?
2) If not, how will we implement it?

Shai

On 2/8/07, Daniel J Sebald < address@hidden> wrote:

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  7-Feb-2007, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
> | John W. Eaton wrote:
> |
> | > Also, is the mapping of line types (integers) to the actual styles
> | > terminal dependent?
> |
> | Probably so.  There is a solution, but I don't know if it works well
> | for Octave.  In gnuplot look at the help under x11->line_resources
> | and you'll see that there is a way to control the line dash/dot
> | pattern with the x11 resources file.
>
> But this is terminal dependent, isn't it?  If we use X11 resources as
> a way to  control line appearance, it might look great on the screen
> but the line style won't show up in a PostScript, PDF, or png file.  I
> doubt that users will be happy about that.

No doubt on that one.  Consistency between terminals has been discussed.  There is a lot of reluctance to changing long standing behavior.  I think the only way to get consistency would be to define strings like "triangles", "squares", "diamonds", etc.  But even that idea was lukewarm  because it may be that not all named sybols (line types) could be supported.

Dan