Re: Binary distributions (was: Re: Release goals for 3.6)

[fork]

PhilipNienhuis <pr.nienhuis <at> hccnet.nl> writes:

> But to avoid disappointment for the "wider audience", or as you name it:
> "typical Windows user" (and potential backfiring to Octave's reputation) I
> think more test reports are needed.
> Perhaps a chicken-and-egg problem: maybe we first need an "alpha" / "beta"
> binary or RC to collect more user reports?

I have been using Tatsuro's latest binary 3.4.2 for a few weeks, and it has been
fine except for an issue with FLTK fonts (which I have been remiss in getting
onto a bug report).  I used the 3.2.4 for a year before that, with the only
problem being that I had to run "replot" sometimes to get gnuplot to draw after
being hidden by a window.

I avoid Java like the plague, and I use csv files instead of trying to
read/write to Excel, so I can't comment on those possible issues.

Perhaps silence can be taken as a recommendation?  I don't know what else one
can do, really -- calling it beta or RC probably wouldn't really matter to
anyone (and it is far beyond alpha, IMHO).