dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:00:53AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> 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.

I think we'll find out. Whenever we feel like we have enough new
features for a new stable branch, we go into beta/rc mode for a little
while and then bump Y. I think the second naming scheme avove might
work fine. Let's try it.

But can someone explain the picture of the series/branches on the
DOLFIN Launchpad page? I find it confusing. It surely looks like three
"branches" to me.

--
Anders