dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday June 1 2010 11:28:25 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:17:45AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Tuesday June 1 2010 11:12:41 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:00:22AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday June 1 2010 04:03:33 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:05:42PM +0200, kent-and@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:01:22AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Thursday May 27 2010 23:28:19 Kent Andre wrote:
> > > > > > >> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > You can controll this by setting the environment variable:
> > > > > > >> > >   INSTANT_CACHE_DIR
> > > > > > >> > > 
> > > > > > >> > > to different directories for the different DOLFIN builds.
> > > > > > >> > > 
> > > > > > >> > > If you use different conf files for the different DOLFIN
> > > > > > >> > > builds you
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> > > easily controll the instant cache dir from within these.
> > > > > > >> > > 
> > > > > > >> > > We once included the dolfin version in the cache id, but
> > > > > > >> > > it was
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> removed
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> > > as it the ufc python module is not dependent on anything
> > > > > > >> > > in dolfin.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> Not
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> > > sure how true this is in reality though.
> > > > > > >> > > 
> > > > > > >> > > What kind of troubles have you encountered?
> > > > > > >> > > 
> > > > > > >> > > Johan
> > > > > > >> > 
> > > > > > >> > The shared library in the cache is linked against another
> > > > > > >> > Dolfin and therefore it wouldn't load.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> Ok I see. We are including the __version__ in the signature of
> > > > > > >> the instant
> > > > > > >> module, but if you are using the latest stable version
> > > > > > >> together with a development version, you get the same version
> > > > > > >> number, which wont trigger a new
> > > > > > >> module.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> One way to fix this is to increase the version on all
> > > > > > >> development versions.
> > > > > > >> This would make sense as we are no longer developing the
> > > > > > >> 0.9.7, which is released. We are developing 0.9.8, which is
> > > > > > >> then reflected by the __version__
> > > > > > >> string. Other softwares use this convention too.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> If we want to be water proof we could look up libdolfin.so and
> > > > > > >> take a md5 sum
> > > > > > >> of the file and use that in the signature. We then need to use
> > > > > > >> different suffixes and prefixes for the different platforms.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We should set the number to "x.y.z+" right after the release.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This is done in FFC (as part of the post-release hook) and it
> > > > > > > needs to be done also in DOLFIN. I'll add this to the DOLFIN
> > > > > > > post-release hook.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think we should go for the water proof solution and use info
> > > > > > either from the library or compiler options + version numbers.
> > > > > > The compiler options solution might be the simplest portable
> > > > > > solution (?). It should be simple enough to do.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Kent
> > > > > 
> > > > > The version number in DOLFIN is now set to 0.9.7+ and the release
> > > > > script has been updated to take care of this for subsequent
> > > > > releases.
> > > > 
> > > > Nice.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not just step the dot release counter a whole step?
> > > 
> > > You mean to 0.9.8?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > That would be wrong since it is likely different from what 0.9.8 be.
> > 
> > Sure, but it is becomming 0.9.8! It might be easier than introducing the
> > "+". The users of the development branch would know that it is _not_ the
> > final release, and it will distinct the development branch from the last
> > stable one.
> > 
> > But this is _not_ a big deal for me :)
> 
> I think the version number should indicate that it is not the actual
> 0.9.8. Another reason for calling it 0.9.7+ (and not something like
> 0.9.8-alpha) is that we don't know what the next version number will
> be when making a release. I might get bumped to 1.0. (But not in this
> case. I expect a 0.9.8 release soon.)

Ok, make sense.

Johan