Re: Removing control, finance and quaternion toolboxes

[Thomas Weber]

On 29/07/08 16:54 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 29-Jul-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> 
> | Thomas Weber has already agreed to host the release repos, but he
> | suggested to use a single repo with branches instead. (Did you get a
> | Cc?) The reasoning seems valid to me. Unless you have
> | counter-arguments, I'll go ahead and dive into it.
> 
> I think a separate archive for each 3.0.x release is not necessary,
> but since the branch point for each new stable series (3.0.x, 3.2.x,
> etc.) will be different, I don't see the point of having a single
> archive for each of those.  I don't plan to have these branches in my
> archive (as the release-3-0-x branch is now) because it doesn't seem
> to be of much help.  But since you will be the one dealing with the
> archive(s), it is up to you how you organize it (them).

Okay, to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing:

I understood Jaroslav as follows: he wants a new repository for each 3.0.x
series, ie we have repositories:
        octave-3.0.2
        octave-3.0.3
        ...

I think that would be overkill because as soon as a version is released,
nothing is going to happen in that specific repository anymore. And as
octave-3.0.3 would be a clone from octave-3.0.2 anyways, it seems simpler to
me to use just one repository octave-3.0.x and tag release in there.

I don't think that repository should contain 3.2 stuff, in fact if we come to
releases for the 3.2 series, a separate repository might be in order.

        Thomas