dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:54:00AM -0500, Satish Balay wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Anders Logg wrote:
> 
> > But it seems strange that the version number is still 2.3.0 if it is
> > actually different from the original 2.3.0. Why not change the version
> > number to avoid confusion?
> 
> We do update the patch level [stored in petsc/include/petscversion.h]
> 
> The reason for the current approach [update the release tarfile with
> patches] is:
> 
> - when doing a fresh install very few people appear to download
>   [tarfile+patchfile]

This is probably true but I don't see a conflict with updating the
name of the tarball to show that it has been patched.

> - tarfile + patchfile_21 + patchfile_32 creates some errors/fuzz
> [because of already applied patches] - and users don't know for sure
> if these patch-errors can be ignored.
> 
> - patchfile for Buildsytem component would be a differet file - and
> would need to applied differently
> 
> - Its easier for us to re-generate the tarfile then create a patchfile
> 
> 
> Maybe for the next releae I'll see if I can also encode 'patchlevel'
> in the tarfile-name & dirname [petsc-2.3.1-11.tar.gz,
> PETSC_DIR=petsc-2.3.1-11]

That would be great! Then we could tell users of DOLFIN that they need
PETSc version so and so and it would be obvious which version they
have downloaded. It is also the way all other projects I know of name
their tarballs.

/Anders