fenics team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 28 October 2011 17:43, Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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"?
>

Good point. Maybe we need to decide on which releases/snapshots we
package? Do we want to bother packing snapshots from trunk?

Garth


> Johannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>