On 2013-12-16 18:02, Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:53:00PM +0000, Garth N. Wells 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/
That looks good (but I suspect more will be necessary after 1.3).
ok to merge.
Yes.
I tried to keep changes to a minimum, but it did require a lot of
changing on the DOLFIN side.
I'll merge into 'next'.
Garth
--
Anders
>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.
Garth
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
