On 28/06/11 10:15, Anders Logg wrote: > ok, it would be good to also hear Garth's thoughts. > > If there is no enthusiasm for a big release this week, I suggest that > we make a release of 0.9.12 tomorrow (or as soon as the new > variational problem interface is working). Any other remaining bugs or > blueprints can be retargeted to rc-1 which we can work on in August. > That way we can generate and archive the documentation for 0.9.12 on > the web page, which will be a good test for the documentation/web. >
0.9.12 is better. Garth > What does "deployment" mean that you have listed for one of your > blueprints? > > -- > Anders > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 01:26:51AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: >> Not sure what is best, but I have at least finished bugs and blueprints >> assigned to me for both 0.9.12 and 1.0.0-rc1. I will also not be available >> for >> code sprint this week. >> >> Johan >> >> On Monday June 27 2011 03:38:11 Anders Logg wrote: >>> B0;268;0cDear all, >>> >>> What are your thoughts on a release of 1.0? One of the main obstacles, >>> at least for me personally has been the FEniCS book which has now been >>> submitted. >>> >>> Is there any interest in a code sprint this week, to try to have >>> something ready for the release by the end of the week? I'm up for it. >>> >>> I see two different options: >>> >>> 1. Merge the milestons 0.9.12 and 1.0.0-rc1 and release 1.0.0-rc1 at >>> the end of the week. Then we collect (and maybe fix) bug reports >>> during the summer and aim for a release of 1.0 in August (possibly >>> after a 1.0.0-rc2 and rc3). >>> >>> 2. Finish up and release 0.9.12 this week and then go into release >>> mode in August with 1.0.0-rc1, 1.0.0-rc2, ..., 1.0.0. >>> >>> In both cases (after releasing 1.0-rc1) we should only fix bugs (not >>> add new features or change the interface) before releasing 1.0.0. >>> >>> I don't know when the Debian import freeze is, so it may have >>> implications on the choice we need to make. >>> >>> Another thing to discuss is what should happen after 1.0.0. I think it >>> would be good to be much more conservative with interface changes than >>> what we have been. With the latest change to VariationalProblem, I >>> think we have converged pretty well so I don't foresee any big changes >>> will be needed. >>> >>> This also relates to the policy in Debian for binary compatibility >>> with shared libraries which may prevent any big changes to the >>> interface. I think Johannes knows more about this. >>> >>> >>> So (1) or (2)? Or none of the above? In either case, I think we need >>> to make a common decision so we can coordinate and others know what to >>> expect. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
