dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:53:20PM -0500, Satish Balay wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Anders Logg wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Currently this info is already in petsc/include/petscversion.h as
> mentioned above
> 
> > > - 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.
> 
> Here we are talking about patches to a stable release. DOLFIN should
> still stick with specifying a 'release version'. - and not deal at
> patch level.
> 
> We want folks to get the latest bugfixed patchlevel [not get stuck at
> an old patchlevel as would be the case with the above
> description]. This is one reason for not keeping older [patchlevel]
> tarfiles arround...

I don't suggest that you keep old versions on your web page (but I
would argue that would also be good), only that you name the tar file
petsc-2.3.x.tar.gz where you increase x with new versions/patches and
make it explicit on the PETSc web page that the latest version is
2.3.1-11. That way we can say: "depends on PETSc version 2.3.1-11"
instead of 2.3.0 which is ambiguous. I didn't know there existed a
later version than 2.3.0 (except the development version) and there
are probably other PETSc users who are just as ignorant as I am...

/Anders