[Pkg-octave-devel] unstable snapshots

Dirk Eddelbuettel edd@debian.org
Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:23:14 -0600

On 15 March 2005 at 12:12, John W. Eaton wrote:
| | Instead of octave2.1.90, which is confusing, why not simply octave2.9?
| OK, if that is easy, then I'll go with 2.9.x.

I'm not really on top of this, but I got the gist that migration from the NEW
queue is slooow. So it may be a while a new octave2.9 package actually enters

| An RC bug (say, "not ready to replace octave2.1 yet") would be OK, but
| if we actually introduce a new package name, then I suppose it is not
| as important to keep it out of testing.  In that case, we should keep
| octave2.1 as the default version for now and allow people to install
| both.  If there are problems with octave2.9 we can always point them
| to octave.2.1 until the problems can be fixed.

Exactly, that's the upside of having distinct package names, and allowing
them to be installed in parallel.


Better to have an approximate answer to the right question than a precise 
answer to the wrong question.  --  John Tukey as quoted by John Chambers