[Pkg-octave-devel] unstable snapshots

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

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
unstable. 

| 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.

Dirk

-- 
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