Re: [Gretl-devel] functions vs commands (was Re: Octave support)

Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti schrieb: >> >> I think there is no reason to combine "feature milestones" with the >> release of 2.0.0. IMHO this just makes it more difficult to communicate >> to the users the backwards-incompatible changes. New features are being >> added to gretl all the time (thanks to you!) with just regular minor >> releases. Why change that now? So maybe those estimators will be ready >> to be included in the 1.9.x series, or in the 2.0.x series, I think it >> doesn't matter. (Since they are not coded in gretl script, the syntax >> changes shouldn't affect them, right?) > > I disagree. Bizarre as it may seem, people do regard version numbers as > meaningful. IMO it makes good marketing sense to give a signal outside > the small clique of gretl enthusiasts basically saying "gretl has come > of age". There's a crowd out there who still think that gretl is a nice > toy for teaching undergraduates. Honestly I don't think that a release with a lot of backwards-incompatible changes is a good time to try to convince those who are in doubt of the maturity of a software. (This doesn't mean I'm against those changes, but I doubt it has the effect you are hoping for.) > > Changing major version number may help in shifting the perception about > gretl. But if we want people to believe that now gretl is in the same > league as the big guys, the changelog has to be MASSIVE. If we manage to > convince people that gretl 2.x is substantially different from gretl > 1.x, it may be psychologically easier for them to accept the fact that > old scripts may have to be revised. >

... If we have to break people's scripts, let's do it once and for all. My proposal: release 1.9.0 advertising it as a preparation release for 2.0.0. The visible changes would be, apart from what is now in CVS, the fact that we advertise in the loudest and most annoying way that the syntax is about to change, via warnings, error messages, pop-up windows, you name it.