On 6 March 2013 06:56, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > I suggest we make 1.0.2, and 1.1.1 releases too, but I guess that was > already on your mind? >
I think we should rationalise this. We want (a) to minimise the amount of work and (b) encourage users to update . I wouldn't bother with 1.1.1. Garth > Johan > > On 03/05/2013 05:10 PM, Johannes Ring wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> It was suggested earlier today that we make a new release. No one has >> objected and I have been appointed as the release manager, so we are >> then at step four in the development model [1]. >> >> Tomorrow, March 6, I will fork the development branches into 1.2.x >> branches [2] to prepare for the release of FEniCS 1.2. The buildbot >> will then be updated to build the 1.2.x branches, and when it is >> green, we can go ahead and make the release. Alternatively, we can >> wait one week as suggested by the development model. Development can >> of course continue in the development branches, but only bug fixes >> will be merged into the 1.2.x branches to be included in the 1.2 >> release. >> >> [1] http://fenicsproject.org/contributing/development_model.html >> [2] DOLFIN, FFC, Instant, UFC (2.2.x) and UFL are needed >> >> Johannes >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
