dolfin team mailing list archive

[Martin Sandve Alnæs <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 28 June 2011 11:19, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:37:51AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> On 28 June 2011 10:26, Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Not sure what is best, but I have at least finished bugs and blueprints
>> > assigned to me for both 0.9.12 and 1.0.0-rc1. I will also not be available for
>> > code sprint this week.
>> >
>> > Johan
>> >
>> > On Monday June 27 2011 03:38:11 Anders Logg wrote:
>> >> B0;268;0cDear all,
>> >>
>> >> What are your thoughts on a release of 1.0? One of the main obstacles,
>> >> at least for me personally has been the FEniCS book which has now been
>> >> submitted.
>> >>
>> >> Is there any interest in a code sprint this week, to try to have
>> >> something ready for the release by the end of the week? I'm up for it.
>> >>
>> >> I see two different options:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Merge the milestons 0.9.12 and 1.0.0-rc1 and release 1.0.0-rc1 at
>> >> the end of the week. Then we collect (and maybe fix) bug reports
>> >> during the summer and aim for a release of 1.0 in August (possibly
>> >> after a 1.0.0-rc2 and rc3).
>> >>
>> >> 2. Finish up and release 0.9.12 this week and then go into release
>> >> mode in August with 1.0.0-rc1, 1.0.0-rc2, ..., 1.0.0.
>> >>
>> >> In both cases (after releasing 1.0-rc1) we should only fix bugs (not
>> >> add new features or change the interface) before releasing 1.0.0.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know when the Debian import freeze is, so it may have
>> >> implications on the choice we need to make.
>> >>
>> >> Another thing to discuss is what should happen after 1.0.0. I think it
>> >> would be good to be much more conservative with interface changes than
>> >> what we have been. With the latest change to VariationalProblem, I
>> >> think we have converged pretty well so I don't foresee any big changes
>> >> will be needed.
>> >>
>> >> This also relates to the policy in Debian for binary compatibility
>> >> with shared libraries which may prevent any big changes to the
>> >> interface. I think Johannes knows more about this.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So (1) or (2)? Or none of the above? In either case, I think we need
>> >> to make a common decision so we can coordinate and others know what to
>> >> expect.
>> >>
>>
>> I vote for (2), or similar but calling it 1.0-beta.
>>
>> My understanding would then be something like:
>> Within the week: 1.0-beta1 (or 0.9.12)
>> If bugs are fixed during summer: 1.0-beta<n>
>> Early august: 1.0-rc1
>> If bugs are fixed during august: 1.0-rc<n>
>> Late august: 1.0 release.
>
> I'm starting to think that is the best option. So here's my suggestion:
>
> 1. Release 0.9.12 (alias 1.0.0-beta) this week
> 2. Release 1.0.0-rc1 August 15
> 3. Release 1.0.0 August 30
>
> (or should it be 1.0-rc1?)
>
> Will this work for other packages (UFL)? Is UFL ready for a 1.0
> release?

Yes, lets make ufl 1.0 simultaneously with dolfin and ffc.

> There has also been talk about UFC 2.0 with a reworked interface using
> std::vector. Is that something we want to do now?

Has there? Is that well thought through?
That sounds more like UFC 3.0 though. :)

Martin