Re: Octave 3.8.0-rc1: comments

[John W. Eaton]

On 12/05/2013 10:34 AM, c. wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2013, at 15:53, Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I wasn't complaining just reporting.
> > Since the bug is known and the thread is quite active I would label it
> > as an XFAIL. Though I do not know if this follow the convention.
> >
> > Cheers
>
> This raises an interesting (yet probably not very important) question
> about the proposed branch subdivision.
>
> As it is decided that this bug won't be fixed in the 3.8 release and that
> there will probably not be another 3.8.x release, it would probably make
> sense to mark this as an XFAIL in the stable branch but not on the default
> branch ...
>
> But how can that be done? If the stable branch is periodically merged to
> default the change would propagate to that branch too ...

You can undo the change at the point when the merge happens or 
afterward.  The change won't be applied again just because there are 
differences in the branches.

But I don't think we need to undo the change in the default branch.

We have other bugs that are known in default and that are marked as 
expected failures instead of just failed tests.

jwe