Re: 3.2.0

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Michael Goffioul
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:05 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 19-May-2009, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>>
>> | as we're approaching the end of May, I think most involved users'
>> | expectations (incl. me) as to when Octave 3.2.0 will be out were
>> | already exceeded.
>> |
>> | So here's my offer: I'll start preparing 3.2.0 now. Since apparently
>> | few people were pleased by my idea of using a "stable" repo on
>> | savannah (already operational, but still empty), I think I'll reuse
>> | the established procedure and make the 3.2.x on Thomas Weber's
>> | hosting. I'll clone the current tip in the release-3-2-x repository
>> | and then make a number of release candidates as usual, hopefully
>> | resulting in a stable 3.2.0 release somewhere by the end of May,
>> | depending on the responsiveness of our regular builders.
>> |
>> | The 3.2.x branch will work the same way 3.0.x did, and I'll try to
>> | make releases approximately once per 2 months. Using release
>> | candidates seemed to be by far the most successful approach, although
>> | demanding a bit more from my part, but it seems I'll be able to handle
>> | it at least until the end of the year (yeah and we don't expect any
>> | newborn children this year :).
>> |
>> | Further discussions about the development model are still welcome, but
>> | right now my feeling is that keeping users stuck with 3.0.x is wasting
>> | their time and preventing their better experience with Octave.
>> |
>> | Are there any objections? Remember, we don't want a perfect release,
>> | just a good one in due time.
>>
>> This is fine with me.  Are there any outstanding bug reports that
>> should be handled before we make the release?  The patches I just
>> committed should be included in the 3.2.0 branch.  Other than that, I
>> think we are in pretty good shape for a release now.
>>
>> Please tag the point of the branch in the archive on savannah.
>
> If you can wait until I make octave compilable again under Windows/MSVC,
> that'd be fine. Otherwise it'll be for 3.2.x.
>
> Main problems are:
> - missing xxx_API tags
> - incorrectly placed xxx_API tags
> - unexpected template instantiations
> - compilation of C++ versions of mkoctfile, octave-bug and octave-config
>
> Michael.
>

How long do you expect this to take? Can I help somehow?

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