ufl team mailing list archive

["Marie E. Rognes" <meg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 16. mai 2011, at 13:07, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The suggested plan is as follows:
> 
> 1. Release 0.9.11    now
> 2. Release 0.9.12    2011-05-31
> 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14
> 
> No new features should be added after this point and all known
> bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have
> been fixed.
> 
> 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary
> 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready
> 
> Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a
> chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is
> encouraged to test the release candidate.
> 

Sounds good to me, though "when ready" is not a very definite term.


> How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a
> week). Opinions?

A week is fine as long as one knows approximately when this week is going to be :-) 

--
Marie

> 
> Another thing to discuss is how to handle versioning of packages post
> 1.0. It's practical for users if DOLFIN, UFL, FFC, FIAT have the same
> version numbers. On the other hand, it's not practical for developers.
> In particular, FIAT usually makes less frequent updates than the other
> packages.
> 
> Yet another thing to discuss is whether we want to require that all
> 1.x versions work together, so for example one can assume that FFC
> 1.0.3 works with DOLFIN 1.0.9. In general, I think we need to pay more
> attention to versioning and compatibility post 1.0.
> 
> Johannes has also mentioned to me a requirement in Debian for binary
> compatibility with shared libraries. Johannes, could you say something
> about this?
> 
> --
> Anders
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> Good idea. I just talked to Anders and Kent last week about the need
>> for a testing period with feature freeze before 1.0 is released. After
>> this release we should figure out how the release process up to 1.0
>> should be, also in relation with the book.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On 16 May 2011 12:13, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and
>>> DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching,
>>> and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version
>>> numbers would be:
>>> 
>>> UFL: 0.9.1
>>> FFC: 0.9.1
>>> DOLFIN: 0.9.12
>>> 
>>> Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release.
>>> 
>>> Garth
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/~ufl
>> Post to     : ufl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl
>> 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