On 18 Feb 2009, at 14:54, Søren Hauberg wrote: > 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
Søren, Actually I think it would be better to keep OF packages that are available for download from sourceforge compatible with the stable branch. I beleive most users will probably install the "stable" release of Octave (mainly through the binaries on OF) so we should expect a LOT of complaints from users if the packages are not compatible with that version. My 2 cents, Carlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
