dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <g.n.wells@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Johan Jansson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:47:39PM +0200, logg@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 05:06:21PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
>>>> I have just two concerns:
>>>>
>>>>   1. I would like to see more people helping out with general
>>>>   development and maintenance.
>>> Yes, I think we all do.
>>>
>>>>   2. I would like changes to be propagated to the main tree in
>>>>   small pieces (if they are not independent) so I know what is
>>>>   happening and get a chance to influence the development.
>>> Do you mean in the kernel or in all modules/applications as well? I
>>> think it would be counter-productive to demand that application
>>> developers have to submit to a certain check-in schedule (piece by
>>> piece).
>> Just the kernel. I certainly won't mind any big updates to the elasticity
>> or Navier-Stokes modules.
> 
> Ok, that's good.
> 
>>> Otherwise a simple solution where I think everyone would be happy
>>> would be to have one branch where the kernel is stable which is used
>>> to develop modules/applications (since they won't sabotage eachother),
>>> and one branch where the kernel is unstable, but where very little
>>> application development is done (perhaps only a few simple test
>>> cases). The two branches could then be merged at regular intervals (at
>>> releases for example).
>> Do you mean that we maintain a separate branch that only gets bug fixes
>> between releases? This would of course be good to have, but then we need
>> someone to maintain it. Do you want to maintain such a branch? We could
>> put it in a separate repository (which could replace dolfin-kth) and be
>> named something more official, like dolfin-stable.
>>
> 
> Yes, only bugfixes are allowed in the kernel. But the idea is also
> that modules/applications are developed against dolfin-stable (because
> that development requires a stable kernel). This is assuming that
> modules/applications are supposed to exist in DOLFIN at all, and not
> be separate. But I think we had consensus that that was a good idea,
> since we want to move away from having separate "solvers" for every
> equation.
> 
> I can maintain dolfin-stable, no problem. It will result in less total
> work for me compared to not having a dolfin-stable.
>

This sounds like a very good solution!

Garth

>   Johan
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>