dolfin team mailing list archive

["Johan Jansson" <jjan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
>
> It sounds like current DOLFIN + quality assurance, which sounds very
> reasonable but also very ambitious.
>
> But what makes it confusing is that it seems to be a mix of
> "dolfin-qa" and "arbitrary work on a subset of the modules".
>
> How about instead creating "mini releases" as often as needed
> (whenever you make a snapshot of the development tree and verify that
> it passes all the tests you require for it to be pulled onto the
> dolfin-fsi tree)?
>
> We could name these releases
>
>     dolfin-x.y.z-n.tar.gz
>
> or
>
>     dolfin-x.y.{z+1}-rcn.tar.gz
>
> Then these snapshots could be really useful to everyone.
>
> But if the goal is less ambitious (to have a repository that is
> tailored to your specific development model at KTH + eventually anyone
> else who might be interested) then I have no opinions about the
> repository.
>
> /Anders
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>

Yes, I also thought that what we're doing (or need) is essentially the
same thing as much more frequent releases. I think we should aim for this
model in the near future, it would work well with a split off
dolfin-modules.

For now, let's just see how dolfin-fsi works out though. "work on modules"
depends on "dolfin-qa" so I don't find that strange. It's not arbitrary
work, all public module work should happen in dolfin-fsi. But it's just
natural that since we at KTH have pushed for this, that we also "eat our
own dog food" and show by example how the system should work.

  Johan