ufl team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday May 16 2011 08:36:40 Johan Hake wrote:
> Sounds good!
> 
> > 1. Release 0.9.11    now
> 
> I guess this means sometime early this week?

No, I guess it means now! ;)

Sorry for the spam...

Johan
 
> Johan
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a
> > week). Opinions?
> > 
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp