Re: [Quantlib-dev] Release?

[Luigi B. <lui...@fa...>]

Hi all,

On 2003.10.31 18:20, Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
> Luigi:
>>         this looks to me like a good time to branch out 0.3.4---a  
>> few bugs were fixed (most notably, the library works again with  
>> Borland) and a few features added.
> 
> I would have liked to ask Niels Elken Sønderbys (in CC here) if he  
> would merge his SVJD code (http://www.nielses.dk/quantlib/nesquant/)  
> into QuantLib before the next release.

I was aware of nesquant, even though I didn't mention it. It looked to  
me as one of the nice things we will include into next release, but not  
into this one as it will probably take a while to integrate it and add  
tests. I was thinking of 0.3.4 as a bug-fix release. Heck, Borland  
users couldn't even _use_ 0.3.3.

> Another thing I would like to have fixed is the broken Borland  
> documentation. Luigi: I'm sure it will take few minutes of your  
> time ;-)

You'll be happy to hear that I now have a new box, and Borland isn't  
even installed yet. "A few minutes" kind of strikes me as an  
underestimate :) That, and the fact that I don't know what's broken.
(and anyway, bug-fixes can be applied to the branch)

> A 0.3.4 related issue: I would like to remove my personal address  
> fer...@am... (which I'm going to suspend for a few months  
> due to excessive spam > 300 messages per day) from the "You should  
> have received a copy of the license along with this program; if not,  
> please email fer...@am..." file header. Suggestion about  
> which address could be used instead? What about quantlib-dev@lists. 
> sourceforge.net ?

Ok for me.

>>  The current code would nicely qualify as a
>> semi-stable, bug-fix release which people could rely on while we go
>> ahead and break the world (or start using boost, or flatten  
>> namespaces, or generally start some new development.)
> 
> since you were planning to be backward compatible for one release on  
> namespace flattening, why don't we do it for 0.3.4?

Because I have a real work :)
Also, my point was: we could use a bug-fix release, this is a good  
time, let's branch before we break something else.

Later,
	Luigi