Re: patching the stable branch (was: Re: Octave 3.1.52 available for ftp)

[John W. Eaton]

On 12-Feb-2009, Thomas Weber wrote:

| This boils down to not fixing bugs, but only errors introduced when
| fixing other bugs. Frankly, I'd consider such releases pointless.

I don't think it is pointless to fix regressions, and they can also be
introduced when adding new functionality, not just when fixing bugs.

These guidelines are essentially the same as used for GCC releases.

| Additionally, the work for checking older versions is non-trivial. Which
| older versions do you want to check? Who is going to check it?

Typically, I think we see bug reports that say things like "this used
to work, but when I upgraded it failed".

| Do you have any indication for a loss in stability of the stable branch?
| I'd say it's still stable as a rock.

Leading up to 3.0.4, I started to see reports about problems (mostly
graphics, I think) that were introduced when transplanting patches
from 3.1.x because too much had changed (like the order of the list of
child handles) and the patches were not adapted.  Adapting some
patches like this tends to lead to trouble because the patches are not
all independent.  Knowing what is safe to include isn't always clear.

jwe