Re: [Gretl-devel] RFC: $sigma & co.

Allin Cottrell schrieb: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Sven Schreiber wrote: > > Suppose we change something that breaks an existing package: I > guess it's OK if we're explicit about that, and put up a > modified version of the package that works with the new > release? (With judgment required, of course, on how often to > do that sort of thing.) In my view, yes, the bug fix may (and probably often will) consist of an updated package. All I'm saying is that gretl development should not adopt the attitude "if the package suffers it's not my problem". So IMHO it's not (only) the original author of the package who is responsible for fixing the bug (=getting it working again).

> > 2. For each gretl release some notes (readme) are prepared > > which complement the changelog. They explain the > > backwards-incompatible changes and how to solve the > > associated problems. > > Yes, we should do that. If you want me to do that, I will need a couple of days warning before an imminent release (maybe the same warning as for translators)...

> > 3. Another sourceforge tracker is introduced as a database > > for incompatible changes, including information on when such > > a change was introduced (date and version numbers) and how > > to deal with it. > > If you (or someone else) is willing to take charge of that, > that's fine by me. Ok I will see if I can set it up soon. It should probably be read-only for the general public?

> > Number 1 is two-fold: the testing would need volunteers > > ("package maintainers"?), but simply agreeing to the bug > > policy is just a decision, not work. > > I think it would be easier to roll such tests into the > existing gretl regression suite. I can make this available > via the web. What do you mean by that? Posting a big meta-script? But it sounds nice.