I think we need at least one tar ball with all included as we have had previously.
Johan On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Jan Blechta <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:53:00 +0000 > "Garth N. Wells" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2013-12-16 12:54, Anders Logg wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > It is time for making a release of 1.3. There seem to be 2 > > > outstanding issues before we can make a release: > > > > > > > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/issue/10/nonlinearvariationalsolver-does-not-pass > > > > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/issue/151/resolvecompilerpaths-bug > > > > > > I think the first issue can be closed, and a new issue opened > > > (creating solver object in constructor). I don't know about the > > > status of the second issue. Can the involved parties comment? > > > > > > > UFC is not in good shape because it has half-made changes from > > January and some temporary member data. I made a Pull Request to > > clean this up at > > > > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/ufc/pull-request/2/ > > > > with a Pull Request for the corresponding DOLFIN change at > > > > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/pull-request/73/ > > > > > Johannes has suggested a release on Thursday this week which I think > > > sounds good. > > > > > > To make the release process as smooth as possible and to enable more > > > frequent releases in the future, I suggest we take a few minutes > > > to discuss the process. In particular: > > > > > > In which way can we use Bitbucket to simplify the release process? > > > > > > Which steps need to be taken (tagging, uploading, testing etc)? I > > > think we need to (re)create a cookbook for this. Remember this is > > > the first Bitbucket release we make. > > > > > > Is the release script (fenics-release) functional? Can it be fixed? > > > > > > > Not sure about it being functional, but it will need to manage the > > generated code that is no longer under version control. > > > > Do we want to ship the generated code in the release tarball, or > > require that a user has the whole toolchain installed? The upside of > > shipping the generated code is that a user can run C++ demos without > > FFC (although there may be some generated code inside the library). > > The downside is that we can't just tag a changeset or a branch as a > > release. I guess for Debian/Ubuntu packages it doesn't make much > > difference since demos are part of the doc package. > > It seems that on bitbucket you can have both. Check > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/downloads > - Tags > - Downloads > > I vote for having a release-tagged master available as machine specific > scripts for installation of a current master can be simply altered for > installing the release. > > Jan > > > > > Garth > > > > > -- > > > Anders > > > _______________________________________________ > > > fenics mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics > > _______________________________________________ > > fenics mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics > > _______________________________________________ > fenics mailing list > [email protected] > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
