User-visible mentions of future Octave versions

[Mike Miller-4]

There are a few mentions of Octave 4.6 and 4.8 in some user-visible
places

  * NEWS
  * quadcc.cc (doc string)
  * scripts/deprecated/*.m (doc strings)

Since we know the development branch is now called 5.0.0, should we try
to update these notes on the stable branch so users have the best
information about what's coming? Specifically, mentions of 4.6 are now
5.1, and mentions of 4.8 are now 6.1? Or will we just call them Octave 5
and Octave 6 now?

I don't deal much with deprecations, but I just pushed a change on
stable to delete some things that seemed to have been overlooked for
4.4, please correct if this was not right

  https://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/09e0ddee659c

--
mike

[John W. Eaton]

On 04/08/2018 09:12 PM, Mike Miller wrote:

> There are a few mentions of Octave 4.6 and 4.8 in some user-visible
> places
>
>    * NEWS
>    * quadcc.cc (doc string)
>    * scripts/deprecated/*.m (doc strings)
>
> Since we know the development branch is now called 5.0.0, should we try
> to update these notes on the stable branch so users have the best
> information about what's coming? Specifically, mentions of 4.6 are now
> 5.1, and mentions of 4.8 are now 6.1? Or will we just call them Octave 5
> and Octave 6 now?

Yes, we should probably be consistent since we know what the version
numbers will be.  I pushed a changeset that updates the above files and
more, then merged with default:

http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/7b1b504c2f12

> I don't deal much with deprecations, but I just pushed a change on
> stable to delete some things that seemed to have been overlooked for
> 4.4, please correct if this was not right
>
>    https://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/09e0ddee659c

That looks correct to me.

I started using "FIXME: DEPRECATED: " so that maybe we will miss fewer
things in the future.  I'm also hopeful that someday the number of
things that we need to mark as deprecated will not be so large.

jwe