Re: 3.2.x

[Michael Goffioul]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden> wrote:
> Anyway, I don't think it's strictly necessary to have all the wanted
> patches before the initial fork happens, we can just as well fork now
> (or in near future) and transplant the patches later if they arrive.

My opinion is the following.

As a user, I would expect a (kind of) *major* release of octave such
as 3.2 to bring some outstanding changes or new features. I would
also expect those features to be quite complete. OO support is a
good candidate for this, but it still lacks a few things to make it fully
usable (like operator overloading). So I'd see the completion of OO
support as a requirement for 3.2 forking.

I hoped to see the graphics stuff also fully functional for the 3.2
release, but given the manpower and the current changes in my private
life (don't worry, only good news, but time-consuming), I don't see it
as a realistic target. My target is 3.4, with 3.2 being a technology
preview.

OTOH, I see 3.0.x releases as bug-fixes only release. You can't
expect new features there. If some changes from the main branch
cannot be transplanted easily, then I'd say "Too bad, but that's the
way it is, just wait for the next major release". If some changes would
still be useful for the 3.0.x branch, then you can ask the patch author
to port it to the stable branch (instead of you having to do the whole
work).

What I would not like is to jeopardize the quality of 3.2 release,
because some changes cannot be transplanted to 3.0.x branch.

Again, this is just my opinion and I'm sure there are people who
disagree (which is normal).

Michael.