On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:34:33AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Tuesday June 1 2010 11:28:25 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:17:45AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Tuesday June 1 2010 11:12:41 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:00:22AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday June 1 2010 04:03:33 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:05:42PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:01:22AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Thursday May 27 2010 23:28:19 Kent Andre wrote: > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > You can controll this by setting the environment variable: > > > > > > > >> > > INSTANT_CACHE_DIR > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > to different directories for the different DOLFIN builds. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > If you use different conf files for the different DOLFIN > > > > > > > >> > > builds you > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> can > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > easily controll the instant cache dir from within these. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > We once included the dolfin version in the cache id, but > > > > > > > >> > > it was > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> removed > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > as it the ufc python module is not dependent on anything > > > > > > > >> > > in dolfin. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Not > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > sure how true this is in reality though. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > What kind of troubles have you encountered? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Johan > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > The shared library in the cache is linked against another > > > > > > > >> > Dolfin and therefore it wouldn't load. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Ok I see. We are including the __version__ in the signature of > > > > > > > >> the instant > > > > > > > >> module, but if you are using the latest stable version > > > > > > > >> together with a development version, you get the same version > > > > > > > >> number, which wont trigger a new > > > > > > > >> module. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> One way to fix this is to increase the version on all > > > > > > > >> development versions. > > > > > > > >> This would make sense as we are no longer developing the > > > > > > > >> 0.9.7, which is released. We are developing 0.9.8, which is > > > > > > > >> then reflected by the __version__ > > > > > > > >> string. Other softwares use this convention too. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> If we want to be water proof we could look up libdolfin.so and > > > > > > > >> take a md5 sum > > > > > > > >> of the file and use that in the signature. We then need to use > > > > > > > >> different suffixes and prefixes for the different platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should set the number to "x.y.z+" right after the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is done in FFC (as part of the post-release hook) and it > > > > > > > > needs to be done also in DOLFIN. I'll add this to the DOLFIN > > > > > > > > post-release hook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should go for the water proof solution and use info > > > > > > > either from the library or compiler options + version numbers. > > > > > > > The compiler options solution might be the simplest portable > > > > > > > solution (?). It should be simple enough to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > The version number in DOLFIN is now set to 0.9.7+ and the release > > > > > > script has been updated to take care of this for subsequent > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > Nice. > > > > > > > > > > Why not just step the dot release counter a whole step? > > > > > > > > You mean to 0.9.8? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > That would be wrong since it is likely different from what 0.9.8 be. > > > > > > Sure, but it is becomming 0.9.8! It might be easier than introducing the > > > "+". The users of the development branch would know that it is _not_ the > > > final release, and it will distinct the development branch from the last > > > stable one. > > > > > > But this is _not_ a big deal for me :) > > > > I think the version number should indicate that it is not the actual > > 0.9.8. Another reason for calling it 0.9.7+ (and not something like > > 0.9.8-alpha) is that we don't know what the next version number will > > be when making a release. I might get bumped to 1.0. (But not in this > > case. I expect a 0.9.8 release soon.) > > Ok, make sense.
Yes I know. ;-) -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
