3.1 status report

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 16-Jul-2008, John W. Eaton wrote:
>
> | On 16-Jul-2008, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> | 
> | | I'm a bit curious, but why should the first 3.1.x release be called
> | | 3.1.50? Are you so fond of the 2.1.50 release (the one that'll never go
> | | away, it seems...) that you want a similar release in the 3.1.x
> | | series :-)
> | 
> | I want to make a series of snapshots before the next stable version is
> | released.  Originally, I was planning to call the next major stable
> | release 3.1.0, but if we do that, I'm not sure what version to use for
> | the snapshots.  So I thought we could use 3.1.X for the snapshots and
> | 3.2.0 for the next stable release.  I chose X == 50 because I think we
> | are at least 50 percent of the way to 3.2.0.  :-)  But we can start
> | with X at 0 if people think that makes more sense.
>
> Oh, I could also make snapshots with version numbers like
>
>   ss-20080717
>
> but that might cause trouble for version comparison functions.  Does
> it matter?
>
> jwe
>
>   
Yes that does indeed matter as then we'd have trouble preparing an 
octave-forge release for 3.2 based on the 3.1.x development tree. I'd 
prefer a version number 3.1.x where x can be whatever value you choose.

D.