dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:07:08PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 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?

I don't know.

> That sounds more like UFC 3.0 though. :)

I think it's at least a big enough change not to do it now.

--
Anders