3.2.0

[Robert T. Short]

Just a question.  What are the criteria for a release?  I am not arguing 
about the release, just want to know what the process is.

I have a few OOP items that need to be done, but the only real thing 
that should be finished before releasing 3.2 is some documentation and 
the clear classes function.  How does this fit in?


Also, Jaroslav seemed to think that nobody liked the stable repository 
thing.  I didn't get that impression at all.  I am not sure we ever 
agreed on the front-to-back process, but I thought the basic notion was 
pretty agreed on.  It seems to me he should just do it in a way that 
seems to work for him using the stable repository.  If there are 
problems, we will just have to do something else.


Bob


John W. Eaton 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jwe
>
>
>