On 28 June 2011 11:19, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:37:51AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> On 28 June 2011 10:26, Johan Hake <johan.h...@gmail.com> 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. >> >> >> >> I vote for (2), or similar but calling it 1.0-beta. >> >> My understanding would then be something like: >> Within the week: 1.0-beta1 (or 0.9.12) >> If bugs are fixed during summer: 1.0-beta<n> >> Early august: 1.0-rc1 >> If bugs are fixed during august: 1.0-rc<n> >> Late august: 1.0 release. > > I'm starting to think that is the best option. So here's my suggestion: > > 1. Release 0.9.12 (alias 1.0.0-beta) this week > 2. Release 1.0.0-rc1 August 15 > 3. Release 1.0.0 August 30 > > (or should it be 1.0-rc1?) > > Will this work for other packages (UFL)? Is UFL ready for a 1.0 > release?
Yes, lets make ufl 1.0 simultaneously with dolfin and ffc. > There has also been talk about UFC 2.0 with a reworked interface using > std::vector. Is that something we want to do now? Has there? Is that well thought through? That sounds more like UFC 3.0 though. :) Martin _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
