dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday October 25 2011 06:36:11 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:59:13PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > On 25 October 2011 13:10, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:01:45AM +0200, Martin Alnæs wrote:
> > >> Martin
> > >> 
> > >> Den 25. okt. 2011 kl. 08:11 skrev Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > >> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > >> >> On Monday October 24 2011 15:37:08 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> >>> On 24 October 2011 23:29, Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>>> On Monday October 24 2011 14:53:41 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> >>>>> On 24 October 2011 22:11, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:14:43AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>> On Monday October 24 2011 09:45:40 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>> On 24 October 2011 17:35, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>> On 24 October 2011 17:31, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On 24 October 2011 16:58, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> You mean follow Marie's suggestion but wait until we have
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> released 1.0-beta2?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> I don't really see the need to wait.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> I've registered a new series. The code is at
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> https://code.launchpad.net/~dolfin-core/dolfin/dolfin-1.1
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> We can play around with how best to configure things. I had
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> a look at a couple of projects on Launchpad to see how
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> they do it.
> > >> >>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>> Here are some examples:
> > >> >>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>  https://launchpad.net/unity
> > >> >>>>>>>>>  https://launchpad.net/inkscape
> > >> >>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>> I think that we should keep trunk for development, and each
> > >> >>>>>>>>> time we get ready for a release series (1.0, 2.0, etc)
> > >> >>>>>>>>> create a new series for it.
> > >> >>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>> I made tried a few small changes on Launchpad - take a look
> > >> >>>>>>>> at the overview page.
> > >> >>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>> Note that the '1.0' branch is now
> > >> >>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>   lp:dolfin/1.0
> > >> >>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>> lp:dolfin points automatically to the branch which is
> > >> >>>>>>>> associated with the development series (which is now 1.1).
> > >> >>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>> Looks good!
> > >> >>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>> Not sure we should call the development branch 1.1 though. If
> > >> >>>>>>> we are going to keep series for releases I think we can
> > >> >>>>>>> branch of a 1.1 series once the release is in preparation.
> > >> >>>>>>> This series will then be for backporting of bug fixes.
> > >> >>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>> Agree, the development branch should be called trunk. Then we
> > >> >>>>>> branch off 1.1 when we get near release.
> > >> >>>>> 
> > >> >>>>> Take a look now.
> > >> >>>> 
> > >> >>>> Now it looks like there is one trunk and one 1.1 series. Is that
> > >> >>>> correct?
> > >> >>> 
> > >> >>> Yes. There is no 1.1 branch, but there is a 1.1 series and a
> > >> >>> milestone so that we can target bugs and blueprints. We could
> > >> >>> also add a 1.2 series.
> > >> >>> 
> > >> >>> Once most targeted 1.1 bugs and blueprints are closed, we can
> > >> >>> create a branch from trunk to prepare for release.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Ok, slowly getting there!
> > >> > 
> > >> > I still don't understand this model. Where should development
> > >> > happen? I expect it to happen in trunk, but then it won't go into
> > >> > 1.1.
> > >> > 
> > >> > It now looks like we have to worry about three series: the stable
> > >> > 1.0 branch, the 1.1 branch and trunk. I prefer a simpler model with
> > >> > just two branches: stable and development and then "branching" off
> > >> > the development branch when we feel stable.
> > >> 
> > >> Series != branch.
> > >> 
> > >> There is no 1.1 branch yet, only the 1.1 series for targeting stuff.
> > >> There are currently two branches, trunk and 1.0.x.
> > >> Development always happens against trunk.
> > > 
> > > That sounds good, but then I find the Launchpad graphics confusing:
> > > 
> > > https://launchpad.net/dolfin/+series
> > > 
> > > It still looks like three branches/series to me.
> > > 
> > >> When entering testing phase before a release, trunk will be branched
> > >> into 1.1.x just as it was now branched into 1.0.x. Bug fixes for
> > >> 1.0.x will be pushed into the 1.0.x branch as well as trunk.
> > >> 
> > >> I like the model. I do not see how this works out with the other
> > >> projects yet.
> > > 
> > > Does this mean that next time we feel like we've added a new important
> > > feature that we want to release, that should be released as 1.1.0? And
> > > then we need to go through the whole cycle of beta releases and
> > > release candidates?
> > > 
> > > I think we need a model where we can make "development releases" that
> > > add new features without the big overhead of several months of testing
> > > and stabilization. But once in a while (say once every year), we make
> > > a new "stable" release that we maintain for a while.
> > 
> > That sounds a bit like the odd (testing)/even (stable) release numbering.
> 
> Yes, that's one way to solve it. The point is that I think we should
> be able to make releases from the development branch without needing
> to start a new stable branch every time we add a new feature.
> 
> > We could create milestones 1.1-pre0, 1.1-pre1, etc.
> 
> Yes, that could work too.
> 
> So instead of
> 
>   1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, ...          development releases
>   1.2.0-beta1, 1.2.0-beta2, ...     beta releases (approaching stable)
>   1.2.0-rc1, 1.2.0-rc2, ...         release candidates (only bug fixes)
>   1.2.0, 1.2.1, ...                 stable releases with bug fixes
> 
> we do
> 
>   1.1-pre0, 1.1-pre1, 1.1-pre2, ... development releases
>   1.1.0-beta1, 1.1.0-beta2, ...     beta releases (approaching stable)
>   1.1.0-rc1, 1.1.0-rc2, ...         release candidates (only bug fixes)
>   1.1.0, 1.1.1, ...                 stable releases with bug fixes
> 
> ?
> 
> Then it's only a naming issue. Either one is fine with me.

I am fine with either one too. 

That said I have the feeling that the release of 1.0 was a happening that was 
fuelled by the release of the book. When we do not have a book that burn our 
backs I have a feeling we are going to fallback into the "old" habbit of 
continuous developing with minor releases.

If we are going to adopt a stable/unstable release we need a system of 
deadlines, which forces us to go in some sort of stabalizing mode. Most _big_ 
software projects have that, but I am not fully convinced we need it or are 
able to enforce such a scheme on FEniCS development. 
 
Johan

> --
> Anders
> 
> > Garth
> > 
> > >> I was really not happy with the timing, these things should really not
> > >> be done in a hurry without even the core developers knowing what is
> > >> going on. I hope this means the beta3 is to be released ASAP, dual
> > >> branches increases the workload on everyone.
> > >> 
> > >> The buildbot still points to main which no longer exists. It should
> > >> point to 1.0.x while we are stabilizing that.
> > >> 
> > >> Martin
> > >> 
> > >> >> Johan
> > >> >> 
> > >> >>> Garth
> > >> >>> 
> > >> >>>> Johan
> > >> >>>> 
> > >> >>>>> Garth
> > >> >>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>> We then need a policy for what goes into 1.X.Y releases.
> > >> >>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>> I suggest that releases which brances from the development
> > >> >>>>>>> series will get a bump in X and then Y is naturally set to 0.
> > >> >>>>>>> When there are bug fixes in a 1.X series and we deside we
> > >> >>>>>>> should release a bug fix for a stable sereies we bump Y for
> > >> >>>>>>> that series.
> > >> >>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>> Yes. So we might have 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3 etc for some time and
> > >> >>>>>> at the same time have 1.1.0, 1.1.1 etc.
> > >> >>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>> Something to consider is whether we want to make frequent
> > >> >>>>>> releases from the development version. That's how we usually
> > >> >>>>>> do things and it's good to get testing. Then we could use the
> > >> >>>>>> old Linux kernel versioning (which is now abandonded) and
> > >> >>>>>> release 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.3 (odd X) as development releases,
> > >> >>>>>> and when we think 1.1.5 or so is good enough, we branch off
> > >> >>>>>> 1.2.0.
> > >> >>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>> (Hmm... maybe it should be called 1.1 as Garth says if we use
> > >> >>>>>> this scheme.)
> > >> >>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>> Johan
> > >> >>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>> Garth
> > >> >>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>> After 1.0 we want 2.x.x or 1.1.x?
> > >> >>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>> Garth
> > >> >>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Garth
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest making the fork from the upcoming beta release,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> this gives a cleaner relation between branches.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Den 24. okt. 2011 kl. 15:53 skrev "Marie E. Rognes"
> > >> >>>> 
> > >> >>>> <meg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We seem to agree that it is time to split the dolfin-1.0
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and dolfin-dev development.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather than splitting off new development to a -dev
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> branch, I would suggest splitting off 1.0 at this
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> point, cf. the suggestions in "Creating series" on
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://help.launchpad.net/Projects/SeriesMilestonesRele
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ases
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes/no?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > >> >>>>>>>> 
> > >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>>>>> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > >> >>>>> 
> > >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> >>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > >> > 
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> > Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > >> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > > Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp