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

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Sven Schreiber wrote: > Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti schrieb:

>> In the meantime, development continues as normal. When we reach the >> following milestones: >> >> - System GMM estimator for dynamic panel data (Blundell-Bond) >> - At least EGARCH/GJR >> - Bivariate probit / IV probit >> >> which are IMO the main holes in our coverage, we release 2.0.0 with the >> new syntax as well. > > 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.

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.