dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday October 25 2011 09:29:15 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> On 25 October 2011 17:25, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:21:49AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> >> On Tuesday October 25 2011 09:11:49 Anders Logg wrote:
> >> > 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/dol
> >> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> fin-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.
> >> 
> >> It helps thinking
> >> 
> >>   series != branch
> > 
> > I realize that, but they both seem to be visualized the same way.
> > 
> >> But I think we can do without the 1.1 series for now. That one we
> >> establish once we go into release mode, and considering your answer
> >> above, this wont happen too often.
> 
> I think that we do need it. Is part of planing and setting goals.

Ok, that makes sense.

> >> I suggest we add the devlopment milestones to the trunk series instead
> >> of having a dedicated series for these. This means we add:
> >> 
> >>   1.1-pre0 (or 1.1 depending on naming scheme)
> >> 
> >> to trunk.
> > 
> > Sounds good to me.
> 
> It will get out of control - we'll end up with 10's of milestones in
> the trunk series. Having 1.1, 1.2, 2.0, etc gives structure to goal
> setting.

Sure but then that would only be for the stable releases. We need some sort of 
milestones for the development (pre) releases too. It is these I suggest we 
keep in trunk.

We can still have a stable release series with milstones gathering larger 
blueprints and bugs.

Johan

> Garth
> 
> > --
> > Anders
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp