fenics team mailing list archive

[Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> There has been some concern regarding the lack of predictability in
> FEniCS releases. Yesterday, some of us at Simula met to discuss what
> can be done to improve the situation. The result is the following
> draft for a future development model:
>
>  http://fenicsproject.org/contributing/development_model.html
>
> Please comment on the draft and suggest corrections.
>
> The new development model calls for a "release manager" to coordinate
> each stable release (currently 1.0). I can volunteer to serve as
> release manager this time. I'd be happy to step aside if someone else
> is motivated.
>
> I know some of you, in particular those from Simula who helped draft
> the proposal, have already said OK, but please respond anyway for the
> record.

I also agree that it looks like a good model, however, as a Debian
maintainer, I'm a bit worried about the version numbering. For some
time ago we agreed (at least some of us) that at least Y should be
bumped on interface changes in the DOLFIN shared library. Does this
still fit in with this model?

I also don't like version numbers like 1.1-pre1 because it isn't "less
than" for instance 1.1-beta1:

    $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-pre1 lt 1.1-beta1; echo $?
   1

Can we use something else than "pre"? How about "alpha"?

Johannes