Hi James (and others), I share your worry that practical (and principal) hurdles make it hard to sustain and grow a sound user and developer community. However I do not quite understand all your points. I'll deal with each below.
> The current binary-build model is sufficient? No I do not think it is working well enough, because we should have more frequent releases than we have had (this year). However I think binary packages are a must for many people, because it makes it easy and quick to test the software. > > Strangely, this list has grown quite. If I upset anyone, I am apologizing > now. However, I have seen many and been part of a few projects that have > fallen apart, because, open source was not "conveniently_open". We can also > move to a model where codes are developed however the core developers want > them to be; even separately if desired. We can then copy codes to a central > location(s) where anyone can download, compile, test and validate the codes > separately or as part of a "release", a "version number" or simple as > ./configure and make makefile types of scenarios. We do have a central location: the github repos are open and anyone can download any module in its current state, or older releases. What is it you are looking for that is not provided by the current repos? I can say that we should probably tag the repos more often. When we have reached a useful milestone (such as when the SPE cases were running successfully last winter) we should have tagged the repos to be able to refer to it easily later, even if we did not make a release as such. I think we should also be open to accepting tags from the general community for a variety of reasons, for example to mark the exact versions used in the publishing of a paper. Atgeirr _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
