On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 11:14:41AM +0100, Johan Jansson wrote: > Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:03:46PM +0100, Johan Hoffman wrote: > > > >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:50:47PM +0100, Johan Jansson wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi! > >>>> > >>>> Unicorn has now been updated against the DOLFIN 0.7.1 interface and I'm > >>>> planning to start updating for release. The plan is to have a > >>>> synchronized release of FFC/DOLFIN/Unicorn to guarantee compatibility of > >>>> the releases. Are there any objections for a release of DOLFIN and FFC > >>>> in the next couple of days? I expect only minor issues to resolve during > >>>> the synchronization, but there might be recent developments I've missed, > >>>> so any comments are welcome. > >>>> > >>>> The Unicorn repository is here: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.fenics.org/hg/unicorn > >>>> > >>>> The project page is here: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.fenics.org/wiki/Unicorn > >>>> > >>>> and a mailing list has been created as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> Johan > >>>> > >>> There are quite a few things to fix in both FFC and DOLFIN before a > >>> release. > >>> > >>> FFC: > >>> > >>> 1. Use FooTransformedSpace in FIAT to get correct function spaces on > >>> UFC reference element. This also requires making a new release of > >>> FIAT. > >>> > >>> 2. A few fixes are needed for the JIT compiler. > >>> > >>> 3. Get BDM, RT, BDFM, Nedelec working when using FIAT transformed > >>> spaces. > >>> > >>> 4. Maybe some fixes for quadrature elements. Kristian? > >>> > >>> DOLFIN: > >>> > >>> 1. Computation of parallel dof map. > >>> > >>> 2. Get parallel assembly working. > >>> > >>> 3. Finish the implementation of linear algebra factories (still some > >>> problems with circular dependencies). > >>> > >>> 4. Move to new scons-based build system. > >>> > >>> I think a best-case scenario is we can have these fixed by the end of > >>> January, possibly 1-2 weeks later. Maybe the scons-based build system > >>> can wait if it takes time to finish. > >>> > >>> > >> It seems that the Unicorn release we are preparing for is not dependent on > >> any of the points above, so maybe we can do a special release right now > >> without these improvements? (It could be a DOLFIN 0.7.1-1 etc. or > >> similar?) > >> > >> Then there could be a more substantial next release (e.g. DOLFIN 0.7.2) > >> with the points listed fixed. > >> > >> /JH > >> > > > > There are quite a few new features that have been added since 0.7.1 so > > 0.7.1-1 is not suitable (it's not a bugfix release). And before making > > a new release, it would be good to finish all the things that are only > > half-working. > > > > Maybe you can take a snapshot of the current hg if it works for you > > and put the tarball on the unicorn page, something like > > dolfin-unicorn-x.y.z.tar.gz? > > > > > Ok, I understand. I think the best idea is to do both, i.e. first make a > release of the current state of FFC/DOLFIN/Unicorn (with some naming > scheme), and then in a few weeks make a point release with the standard > quality assurance. > > I think it would be a good idea to have quite frequent releases (even if > they haven't been fully quality tested). How about introducing something > like an "incremental" release naming scheme (or "milestone", or perhaps > there are better name ideas). We could have releases named: > > dolfin-incremental-<date>.tar.gz > > and put them in an "incremental" directory. > > This would implement the "release early, release often" principle that > can sometimes drive productivity in open projects. Thus when someone > wants a release of all or some FEniCS components, she can just do some > limited testing, follow the standard release procedure, and make an > incremental release. > > To have a "dolfin-unicorn" release name implies that extra > unicorn-specific changes have been made to DOLFIN, which is not the > case. It's just supposed to be a release, but like we're discussing, > with less quality assurance than a point release. > > What do you think? > > Johan
Release early and often is a good thing. There just hasn't been much pressure to get a release out for a while (probably since most users/developers use the hg version anyway). Depending on what state the code is in when someone asks for a release, it may take from just a day to a couple of weeks to get a release ready. So if you just ask for a release earlier (like a couple of weeks before you need it), then it shouldn't be a problem. The dolfin-incremental thing looks like it complicates things. An alternative would be to make automatic daily snapshots so you can depend on dolfin-2008-01-16 for example. On a related note, can we remove dolfin-stable and dolfin-testing? They haven't been updated for 6 months. -- Anders _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
