octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.9.15 --> 3.0


From: Thomas Weber
Subject: Re: 2.9.15 --> 3.0
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:50:30 +0200

Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 17:31 +0200 schrieb David Bateman:
> Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 12:34 +0200 schrieb Soren Hauberg:
> >   
> >> John W. Eaton skrev:
> >>     
> >>> On  7-Oct-2007, Soren Hauberg wrote:
> >>>
> >>> | So, what does that mean? Essentially we have to make some 3.0 release 
> >>> | candidate release about a week before 3.0 is actually released. 
> >>>
> >>> That's essentially what 2.9.14 was supposed to be, and (RSN) 2.9.15,
> >>> etc.  It's just that we keep finding things to fix or tweak.
> >>>       
> >> What I was suggesting was really to make a release at some point. Call 
> >> the a release candidate. And if nothing big comes up in the following 
> >> week release that. Currently it seems like we keep on fixing bugs, and 
> >> that nobody really knows when 3.0 is released. This isn't helpful to 
> >> people who want to create binary distribution. If we want binary 
> >> distributions on the day of the release, then we need to create an 
> >> unofficial release sometime before the actual release. This is what I 
> >> meant with a release candidate.
> >>
> >> Did that make sense?
> >>     
> >
> > Are there objections to start with this process *now*? Bringing a
> > package with a new name into Debian can easily take more than a week[1].
> > So, we would like to package 2.9.14 as release candidate now, just to
> > have a package with the name octave3.0.
> >
> > Objections?
> >
> > [1] It needs manual intervention outside the realm of packagers.
> >
> >     Thomas
> >   
> Does a RC release have to have a name like 3.0RC1? Can't we just say
> that 2.9.15 is 3.0RC1? Is that sufficient for Debian?
> 

Sure. In theory we could upload the 2.0 sources as octave3.0 (though
that would be *really* unfair to the our archive's gatekeepers). Package
names in Debian don't need to match the actual source package name. 

I just proposed 2.9.14 because it's already out. 

Obvious question: how about other distributions? Notably Fedora?

        Thomas



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]