dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday February 23 2011 09:08:26 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:03:41PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > On 23/02/11 16:59, Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:40:09PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> On 23/02/11 16:35, Anders Logg wrote:
> > >>> Is it time to stop pushing so we don't make any last minute breaking
> > >>> before the release?
> > >> 
> > >> I can stop - the pushes were somewhat related to a bug fix.
> > > 
> > > Great! If you feel the urge to push, you can always push to
> > > ~dolfin-core/dolfin/wells. ;-)
> > > 
> > > Did you just restart the buildbots? I was going to. Anyway, let's wait
> > > until they are green and then make the release.
> > > 
> > > I can do the other releases in the meantime. Which packages need
> > > release?
> > > 
> > >   FFC     0.9.5
> > >   UFC     2.0.0
> > >   UFL     0.6.0 (or 1.0?)
> > >   Viper   0.6.0 (or 1.0?)
> > >   Instant 0.9.9 (or 1.0?)
> > > 
> > > Since we are releasing DOLFIN 1.0 shortly, it might also be good to
> > > bump the version numbers of some of the other packages. It would be
> > > good to get some comments from the main authors of UFL, Viper, Instant.
> > > 
> > > The main plan could then be to only make new releases of DOLFIN and
> > > (maybe) FFC in a month. The other packages have then already be
> > > released so we don't need to bother with those (unless we make bug fix
> > > releases).
> > 
> > Instant needs a critical fix to allow the calling program to pass the
> > SWIG executable, so I wouldn't bump it to 1.0.

Agree.
 
> > There are a few other significant issues that may requires changes to
> > various packages, so let's not bump any version numbers just yet.
> 
> ok, except for UFC then.
> 
> How about bumping to 0.9.9 (for FFC, FIAT, Viper, UFL)?

I suggest bumping just one pointversion. Why should we bump all to 0.9.9?

Johan