On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:21:49AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > On Tuesday October 25 2011 09:11:49 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:00:53AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Tuesday October 25 2011 06:36:11 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:59:13PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > On 25 October 2011 13:10, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:01:45AM +0200, Martin Alnæs wrote: > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Den 25. okt. 2011 kl. 08:11 skrev Anders Logg <l...@simula.no>: > > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > >> >> On Monday October 24 2011 15:37:08 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > >> >>> On 24 October 2011 23:29, Johan Hake <johan.h...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> >>>> On Monday October 24 2011 14:53:41 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>> On 24 October 2011 22:11, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:14:43AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Monday October 24 2011 09:45:40 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On 24 October 2011 17:35, Garth N. Wells > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> <gn...@cam.ac.uk> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On 24 October 2011 17:31, Garth N. Wells > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> <gn...@cam.ac.uk> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On 24 October 2011 16:58, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> You mean follow Marie's suggestion but wait until we > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> have released 1.0-beta2? > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I don't really see the need to wait. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I've registered a new series. The code is at > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> https://code.launchpad.net/~dolfin-core/dolfin/dolfin-1 > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> .1 > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> We can play around with how best to configure things. I > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> had a look at a couple of projects on Launchpad to see > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> how they do it. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Here are some examples: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> https://launchpad.net/unity > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> https://launchpad.net/inkscape > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> I think that we should keep trunk for development, and > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> each time we get ready for a release series (1.0, 2.0, > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> etc) create a new series for it. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> I made tried a few small changes on Launchpad - take a > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> look at the overview page. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Note that the '1.0' branch is now > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> lp:dolfin/1.0 > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> lp:dolfin points automatically to the branch which is > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> associated with the development series (which is now > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> 1.1). > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Looks good! > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Not sure we should call the development branch 1.1 though. > > > > > >> >>>>>>> If we are going to keep series for releases I think we > > > > > >> >>>>>>> can branch of a 1.1 series once the release is in > > > > > >> >>>>>>> preparation. This series will then be for backporting of > > > > > >> >>>>>>> bug fixes. > > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> Agree, the development branch should be called trunk. Then > > > > > >> >>>>>> we branch off 1.1 when we get near release. > > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>> Take a look now. > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Now it looks like there is one trunk and one 1.1 series. Is > > > > > >> >>>> that correct? > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Yes. There is no 1.1 branch, but there is a 1.1 series and a > > > > > >> >>> milestone so that we can target bugs and blueprints. We could > > > > > >> >>> also add a 1.2 series. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Once most targeted 1.1 bugs and blueprints are closed, we can > > > > > >> >>> create a branch from trunk to prepare for release. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Ok, slowly getting there! > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I still don't understand this model. Where should development > > > > > >> > happen? I expect it to happen in trunk, but then it won't go > > > > > >> > into 1.1. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > It now looks like we have to worry about three series: the > > > > > >> > stable 1.0 branch, the 1.1 branch and trunk. I prefer a simpler > > > > > >> > model with just two branches: stable and development and then > > > > > >> > "branching" off the development branch when we feel stable. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Series != branch. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There is no 1.1 branch yet, only the 1.1 series for targeting > > > > > >> stuff. There are currently two branches, trunk and 1.0.x. > > > > > >> Development always happens against trunk. > > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds good, but then I find the Launchpad graphics confusing: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://launchpad.net/dolfin/+series > > > > > > > > > > > > It still looks like three branches/series to me. > > > > > > > > > > > >> When entering testing phase before a release, trunk will be > > > > > >> branched into 1.1.x just as it was now branched into 1.0.x. Bug > > > > > >> fixes for 1.0.x will be pushed into the 1.0.x branch as well as > > > > > >> trunk. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I like the model. I do not see how this works out with the other > > > > > >> projects yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that next time we feel like we've added a new > > > > > > important feature that we want to release, that should be released > > > > > > as 1.1.0? And then we need to go through the whole cycle of beta > > > > > > releases and release candidates? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we need a model where we can make "development releases" > > > > > > that add new features without the big overhead of several months > > > > > > of testing and stabilization. But once in a while (say once every > > > > > > year), we make a new "stable" release that we maintain for a > > > > > > while. > > > > > > > > > > That sounds a bit like the odd (testing)/even (stable) release > > > > > numbering. > > > > > > > > Yes, that's one way to solve it. The point is that I think we should > > > > be able to make releases from the development branch without needing > > > > to start a new stable branch every time we add a new feature. > > > > > > > > > We could create milestones 1.1-pre0, 1.1-pre1, etc. > > > > > > > > Yes, that could work too. > > > > > > > > So instead of > > > > > > > > 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, ... development releases > > > > 1.2.0-beta1, 1.2.0-beta2, ... beta releases (approaching stable) > > > > 1.2.0-rc1, 1.2.0-rc2, ... release candidates (only bug fixes) > > > > 1.2.0, 1.2.1, ... stable releases with bug fixes > > > > > > > > we do > > > > > > > > 1.1-pre0, 1.1-pre1, 1.1-pre2, ... development releases > > > > 1.1.0-beta1, 1.1.0-beta2, ... beta releases (approaching stable) > > > > 1.1.0-rc1, 1.1.0-rc2, ... release candidates (only bug fixes) > > > > 1.1.0, 1.1.1, ... stable releases with bug fixes > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > Then it's only a naming issue. Either one is fine with me. > > > > > > I am fine with either one too. > > > > > > That said I have the feeling that the release of 1.0 was a happening that > > > was fuelled by the release of the book. When we do not have a book that > > > burn our backs I have a feeling we are going to fallback into the "old" > > > habbit of continuous developing with minor releases. > > > > > > If we are going to adopt a stable/unstable release we need a system of > > > deadlines, which forces us to go in some sort of stabalizing mode. Most > > > _big_ software projects have that, but I am not fully convinced we need > > > it or are able to enforce such a scheme on FEniCS development. > > > > I think we'll find out. Whenever we feel like we have enough new > > features for a new stable branch, we go into beta/rc mode for a little > > while and then bump Y. I think the second naming scheme avove might > > work fine. Let's try it. > > > > But can someone explain the picture of the series/branches on the > > DOLFIN Launchpad page? I find it confusing. It surely looks like three > > "branches" to me. > > It helps thinking > > series != branch
I realize that, but they both seem to be visualized the same way. > But I think we can do without the 1.1 series for now. That one we establish > once we go into release mode, and considering your answer above, this wont > happen too often. > > I suggest we add the devlopment milestones to the trunk series instead of > having a dedicated series for these. This means we add: > > 1.1-pre0 (or 1.1 depending on naming scheme) > > to trunk. Sounds good to me. -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
