dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:33:28PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 28/06/11 10:19, Anders Logg 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?
> >
> > There has also been talk about UFC 2.0 with a reworked interface using
> > std::vector. Is that something we want to do now?
> >
>
> What should be fixed now in UFC is changing from double pointers to
> single pointers for rectangular arrays.

Is there any blueprint/bug in DOLFIN that depends on that change?

--
Anders