dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:19:32AM +0200, 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

I've renamed this now to 1.0-beta for psychological reasons.

If we name it 0.9.12, there's a chance we will just continue this path
and release 0.9.13, 14, 15... etc.

--
Anders


> 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?
>