Hi,
Markus Bergholz and I were discussing putting up unstable Windows
binaries (3.9.0+ 4.1.0+) on mxeoctave.osuv.de.
Before proceeding I'd like to have the opinions of other Octave
developers on this.
My thoughts:
- Using mxe-octave I regularly build binary Windows installers anyway
from the gui-release and default branches (currently 3.9.0+ 4.1.0+
combined into one installer). Usually soon after a merge from stable ->
gui-release -> default.
I use those binaries at work (always a good test), rather than stable
Octave versions.
- The unstable versions offer features (and fixes) not yet in stable
that (some/many) users might need. Until now Linux users had a bit of an
advantage here: even with mxe-octave the treshold for building unstable
(Windows, or OSX) Octave versions is still significantly higher than for
Linux users.
- I could also distribute "unstable" OF package versions (in my case the
io package) this way.
- Some increase in bug reports / issues / support requests etc can be
expected. Is this a bad thing?
- User expectation needs attention. I was thinking of an Octave prompt
along the lines of:
"Octave <version> development snapshot <date> - use at own risk!\n>>"
...plus maybe some additions to the readme.
Currently my mxe-octave build tree is somewhat outdated and a bit messy
as I have many personal mods; so I think my current unstable Windows
binaries are less suited for distribution. But now that mxe-octave is
more or less feature-complete (i.e., Ghostscript has been added) I have
a good reason to upgrade :-) and it's easier for me to supply the mxe
changes to comply with the GPL.
Thought, opinions?
Thanks,
Philip
Markus Bergholz and I were discussing putting up unstable Windows
binaries (3.9.0+ 4.1.0+) on mxeoctave.osuv.de.
Before proceeding I'd like to have the opinions of other Octave
developers on this.
My thoughts:
- Using mxe-octave I regularly build binary Windows installers anyway
from the gui-release and default branches (currently 3.9.0+ 4.1.0+
combined into one installer). Usually soon after a merge from stable ->
gui-release -> default.
I use those binaries at work (always a good test), rather than stable
Octave versions.
- The unstable versions offer features (and fixes) not yet in stable
that (some/many) users might need. Until now Linux users had a bit of an
advantage here: even with mxe-octave the treshold for building unstable
(Windows, or OSX) Octave versions is still significantly higher than for
Linux users.
- I could also distribute "unstable" OF package versions (in my case the
io package) this way.
- Some increase in bug reports / issues / support requests etc can be
expected. Is this a bad thing?
- User expectation needs attention. I was thinking of an Octave prompt
along the lines of:
"Octave <version> development snapshot <date> - use at own risk!\n>>"
...plus maybe some additions to the readme.
Currently my mxe-octave build tree is somewhat outdated and a bit messy
as I have many personal mods; so I think my current unstable Windows
binaries are less suited for distribution. But now that mxe-octave is
more or less feature-complete (i.e., Ghostscript has been added) I have
a good reason to upgrade :-) and it's easier for me to supply the mxe
changes to comply with the GPL.
Thought, opinions?
Thanks,
Philip