On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we need at least one tar ball with all included as we have had > previously.
Yes, that would be good. Johannes > 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 > _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
