ons, 18 02 2009 kl. 14:49 +0100, skrev Jaroslav Hajek: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Søren Hauberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > ons, 18 02 2009 kl. 07:47 +0100, skrev Jaroslav Hajek: > >> Unless there are other candidates, I'd take the "optim" and "general" > >> packages. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Søren > > > > > > OK I'm right back with some questions. > What to do with function that will become obsolete in 3.2 (issorted) > or are already obsolete in 3.0 (transpose, ctranspose)? > Shall I just delete them? Is OctaveForge aiming to be compatible with > the latest stable Octave series (that would seem reasonable).
We can definitely assume 3.0 since the package manager was first introduced in 3.0. I think we should assume 3.2 as people can still download older versions of the packages if they want to. Of course if it is trivial to support older version, then I think we should, but (at least for me) it is not a priority. I plan on using 3.2 features in the next version of the 'image' package. Your question seems to be about what to do with functions that are now in Octave. I'd say remove them from the package. If that results in a really small package, then we should consider merging it with some other package. Søren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
