On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:19:32AM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:37:51AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > > On 28 June 2011 10:26, Johan Hake <[email protected]> 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
I've renamed this now to 1.0-beta for psychological reasons. If we name it 0.9.12, there's a chance we will just continue this path and release 0.9.13, 14, 15... etc. -- Anders > 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? > > There has also been talk about UFC 2.0 with a reworked interface using > std::vector. Is that something we want to do now? > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
