Re: indexing expression performance

[Thomas Weber]

Am Freitag, den 16.01.2009, 10:01 +0100 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
> >> The dense indexing improvements started with
> >> http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/7cbe01c21986
> >> dated 20th October and lots of bugfixes afterwards. I don't think this
> >> was in the 3.1.51 snapshot which I think was done in late July. There
> >> was no 3.1.52 so far. So, if you want these, development sources are
> >> your only resort.
> >
> > I'd vote for a new snapshot. Or, if you can give me a mercurial id where
> > sources are in a reasonable[1] shape, we can use that for a new snapshot
> > package in Debian.
> >
> > [1]  Reasonable by whatever metric you choose.
> >
> >        Thomas
> >
> 
> A very loose metric is as follows:
> Checkout a current tip, and wait a whole day for possible patches
> coined like "omission from last patch" etc.
> If no such patch appears, you have a reasonable shape.
> 
> But, given that there were rumors about making 3.1.52 testing
> snapshot, perhaps you'll want to wait for that?

How about a snapshot _now_? I mean, it's a snapshot, it's expected to
contain bugs.

> My opinion for the best way to proceed is to fork 3-2-x branch at a
> suitable time (maybe now) and then make testing and later stable
> releases from it, but I think John has a different idea.
> 
> Btw., I see Debian has a pretty complete octave3.0 package.
> How hard would be packaging the qrupdate library for Debian?
> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/qrupdate).

Good question. I don't have much experience with packaging libraries.
The biggest problem are incompatible changes to the library's interface,
which means a proper SONAME.

It's somewhat complicated by the fact that the library uses Fortran. For
C/C++, you have knowledgable people at every corner. How much do you
expect the library to change in the future?

        Thoma