Re: [OctDev] state of octave-forge code

[Keith G. <kwg...@gm...>]

On 6/14/05, David Bateman <Dav...@mo...> wrote:
> Paul Kienzle a =E9crit :
>=20
> >
> > On Jun 13, 2005, at 8:21 AM, David Bateman wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Kienzle a =E9crit :
> >>
> >>> Presumably we should maintain a separate branch in CVS for those who
> >>> don't want to do the 2.9.x upgrade and are interested in backporting
> >>> bug fixes.  That won't be me.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I feel the main branch in the CVS should probably be the 2.9.x code,
> >> but that might be too agressive at the start with octave 2.9 still
> >> considered as unstable. For that reason I'd suggest creating a 2.1
> >> and a 2.9 branch right now, where 2.1 branch will follow the MAIN
> >> branch at the start, and when 2.9 goes into testing we merge the 2.9
> >> branch into the main branch.
> >
> >
> > If that is easy to do feel free to do so.
> >
> > Having no experiences with branches I would keep it simple, using the
> > trunk for 2.9 and leaving it to the 2.1 folks to deal with branches.
>=20
> It depends on really on what the people who will be developing the
> changes want, so I wouldn't just do such a change, but raise a
> discussion to see what others want...

I think it partly depends on the plans for Octave 2.9. When will it
become the recommended stable version of Octave?

And it partly depends on how much work is needed to be make
Octave-Forge ready for 2.9.

I haven't run into any problems running Octave-Forge with 2.9.3.