Re: 3.2.x

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Michael Goffioul
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
>

Well, I believe that there are (at least) two kinds of users,
differing in what they expect from a major release. One model of
thinking is yours: to undergo the pain of upgrading, you need
something that motivates you.

Other users, OTOH, will just want to upgrade regularly from time to
time to get the latest bugfixes, new functions, docs etc. They don't
really care much about what is new or if a particular feature is
supported, they just want to stay up to date. I'm an example of such
an user (of other software than Octave). Such users usually appreciate
if releases are reasonably frequent and approximately regular. They
have the minor releases, of course, but these don't even get all the
bugfixes, let alone new functions, command options etc.

In particular, this probably applies to all package maintainers for
GNU/Linux distributions - I bet they just always go with the latest
stable release (major first).

What I would not like is 3.2 being put off by a year, just because
operator overloading resists to be completed.


-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz