[Ffc] New releases
I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. Garth ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] New releases
Good idea. I just talked to Anders and Kent last week about the need for a testing period with feature freeze before 1.0 is released. After this release we should figure out how the release process up to 1.0 should be, also in relation with the book. Martin On 16 May 2011 12:13, Garth N. Wells wrote: > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and > DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, > and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version > numbers would be: > > UFL: 0.9.1 > FFC: 0.9.1 > DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. > > Garth > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] New releases
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote: > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and > DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, > and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version > numbers would be: > > UFL: 0.9.1 > FFC: 0.9.1 > DOLFIN: 0.9.12 Why not DOLFIN 0.9.11? Johannes > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. > > Garth > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl > Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Dolfin] New releases
The suggested plan is as follows: 1. Release 0.9.11now 2. Release 0.9.122011-05-31 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 No new features should be added after this point and all known bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have been fixed. 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is encouraged to test the release candidate. How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a week). Opinions? Another thing to discuss is how to handle versioning of packages post 1.0. It's practical for users if DOLFIN, UFL, FFC, FIAT have the same version numbers. On the other hand, it's not practical for developers. In particular, FIAT usually makes less frequent updates than the other packages. Yet another thing to discuss is whether we want to require that all 1.x versions work together, so for example one can assume that FFC 1.0.3 works with DOLFIN 1.0.9. In general, I think we need to pay more attention to versioning and compatibility post 1.0. Johannes has also mentioned to me a requirement in Debian for binary compatibility with shared libraries. Johannes, could you say something about this? -- Anders On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > Good idea. I just talked to Anders and Kent last week about the need > for a testing period with feature freeze before 1.0 is released. After > this release we should figure out how the release process up to 1.0 > should be, also in relation with the book. > > Martin > > On 16 May 2011 12:13, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and > > DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, > > and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version > > numbers would be: > > > > UFL: 0.9.1 > > FFC: 0.9.1 > > DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. > > > > Garth > > > > ___ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl > Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and > DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, > and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version > numbers would be: > > UFL: 0.9.1 > FFC: 0.9.1 > DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. > I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo documentation in particular. In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any objections? (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) -- Marie > Garth > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc > Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16/05/11 12:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > >> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, >> FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, >> FFC caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs >> fixes. New version numbers would be: >> >> UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 >> >> Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a >> release. >> > > I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo > documentation in particular. > > In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the > demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the separate > fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any > objections? > Do you mean move the .rst files to lp:dolfin? Garth > (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment > slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) > > -- Marie > > >> Garth >> >> ___ Mailing list: >> https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16. mai 2011, at 13:52, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > > > On 16/05/11 12:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: >> >>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, >>> FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, >>> FFC caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs >>> fixes. New version numbers would be: >>> >>> UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 >>> >>> Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a >>> release. >>> >> >> I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo >> documentation in particular. >> >> In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the >> demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the separate >> fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any >> objections? >> > > Do you mean move the .rst files to lp:dolfin? The hand-written .rst files for the demos, yes. -- Marie > > Garth > >> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment >> slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) >> >> -- Marie >> >> >>> Garth >>> >>> ___ Mailing list: >>> https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : >>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > >> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and >> DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, >> and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version >> numbers would be: >> >> UFL: 0.9.1 >> FFC: 0.9.1 >> DOLFIN: 0.9.12 >> >> Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. >> > > I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo documentation in > particular. > > In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the demos, I > think we should move the .rst files from the separate fenics-doc repo to the > corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any objections? Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the documentation in one place, thus separating the documentation from the packages containing the code. Kristian > (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment slightly > unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) > > -- > Marie > > >> Garth >> >> ___ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc >> Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc > Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: >> >>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and >>> DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, >>> and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version >>> numbers would be: >>> >>> UFL: 0.9.1 >>> FFC: 0.9.1 >>> DOLFIN: 0.9.12 >>> >>> Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. >>> >> >> I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo documentation >> in particular. >> >> In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the demos, >> I think we should move the .rst files from the separate fenics-doc repo to >> the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any objections? > > Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the documentation > in one place, thus separating the documentation from the packages > containing the code. > I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it more obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it easier to ensure valid documentation for stable releases. Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the code for some of the same reasons? Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a system that is maintainable. -- Marie > Kristian > >> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment slightly >> unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) >> >> -- >> Marie >> >> >>> Garth >>> >>> ___ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc >>> Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> ___ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc >> Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On 16. mai 2011, at 13:07, Anders Logg wrote: > The suggested plan is as follows: > > 1. Release 0.9.11now > 2. Release 0.9.122011-05-31 > 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 > > No new features should be added after this point and all known > bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have > been fixed. > > 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary > 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready > > Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a > chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is > encouraged to test the release candidate. > Sounds good to me, though "when ready" is not a very definite term. > How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a > week). Opinions? A week is fine as long as one knows approximately when this week is going to be :-) -- Marie > > Another thing to discuss is how to handle versioning of packages post > 1.0. It's practical for users if DOLFIN, UFL, FFC, FIAT have the same > version numbers. On the other hand, it's not practical for developers. > In particular, FIAT usually makes less frequent updates than the other > packages. > > Yet another thing to discuss is whether we want to require that all > 1.x versions work together, so for example one can assume that FFC > 1.0.3 works with DOLFIN 1.0.9. In general, I think we need to pay more > attention to versioning and compatibility post 1.0. > > Johannes has also mentioned to me a requirement in Debian for binary > compatibility with shared libraries. Johannes, could you say something > about this? > > -- > Anders > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> Good idea. I just talked to Anders and Kent last week about the need >> for a testing period with feature freeze before 1.0 is released. After >> this release we should figure out how the release process up to 1.0 >> should be, also in relation with the book. >> >> Martin >> >> On 16 May 2011 12:13, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and >>> DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, >>> and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version >>> numbers would be: >>> >>> UFL: 0.9.1 >>> FFC: 0.9.1 >>> DOLFIN: 0.9.12 >>> >>> Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. >>> >>> Garth >>> >>> ___ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >>> Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >> >> ___ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl >> Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:53:03PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > On 16. mai 2011, at 13:07, Anders Logg wrote: > > > The suggested plan is as follows: > > > > 1. Release 0.9.11now > > 2. Release 0.9.122011-05-31 > > 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 > > > > No new features should be added after this point and all known > > bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have > > been fixed. > > > > 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary > > 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready > > > > Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a > > chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is > > encouraged to test the release candidate. > > > > Sounds good to me, though "when ready" is not a very definite term. Def: when we have fixed all bugs found during a testing window of length to be determined below... > > How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a > > week). Opinions? > > A week is fine as long as one knows approximately when this week is going to > be :-) At the release of 1.0.0-rc1 scheduled for 2011-06-14. -- Anders ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On 16 May 2011 15:00, Anders Logg wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:53:03PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 13:07, Anders Logg wrote: >> >> > The suggested plan is as follows: >> > >> > 1. Release 0.9.11 now >> > 2. Release 0.9.12 2011-05-31 >> > 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 >> > >> > No new features should be added after this point and all known >> > bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have >> > been fixed. >> > >> > 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary >> > 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready >> > >> > Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a >> > chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is >> > encouraged to test the release candidate. >> > >> >> Sounds good to me, though "when ready" is not a very definite term. > > Def: when we have fixed all bugs found during a testing window of > length to be determined below... > >> > How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a >> > week). Opinions? >> >> A week is fine as long as one knows approximately when this week is going to >> be :-) > > At the release of 1.0.0-rc1 scheduled for 2011-06-14. So the rcN run should be like this (starting 2011-06-14): 1) Release 1.0.0-rcN 2) Wait for a week (fix bugs as they are reported) 3) When bug list is empty: 3.1) If bugs were found, goto 1) 3.2) If no bugs were found, break 4) Release 1.0.0 With the exception that some bugs may be deliberately marked as to be delayed after 1.0.0. A week is short and will give little chance of any significant testing. But if the next month can be considered a kind of beta period, I guess we'll be fine. No major changes coming up now, right? What about the book? I think it would be best to adapt the code examples to rcN before 1.0.0 is released, in case they trigger bugs that must be fixed. Martin ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:40:32PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On 16 May 2011 15:00, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:53:03PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 16. mai 2011, at 13:07, Anders Logg wrote: > >> > >> > The suggested plan is as follows: > >> > > >> > 1. Release 0.9.11 now > >> > 2. Release 0.9.12 2011-05-31 > >> > 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 > >> > > >> > No new features should be added after this point and all known > >> > bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have > >> > been fixed. > >> > > >> > 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary > >> > 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready > >> > > >> > Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a > >> > chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is > >> > encouraged to test the release candidate. > >> > > >> > >> Sounds good to me, though "when ready" is not a very definite term. > > > > Def: when we have fixed all bugs found during a testing window of > > length to be determined below... > > > >> > How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a > >> > week). Opinions? > >> > >> A week is fine as long as one knows approximately when this week is going > >> to be :-) > > > > At the release of 1.0.0-rc1 scheduled for 2011-06-14. > > So the rcN run should be like this (starting 2011-06-14): > 1) Release 1.0.0-rcN > 2) Wait for a week (fix bugs as they are reported) > 3) When bug list is empty: > 3.1) If bugs were found, goto 1) > 3.2) If no bugs were found, break > 4) Release 1.0.0 Yes, unless this drags on forever... We might consider inserting some convergence criterion into that loop that does not require convergence to zero. Perhaps something like this: while len(bugs) > 2: ... :-) > With the exception that some bugs may be deliberately marked as to be > delayed after 1.0.0. Yes. > A week is short and will give little chance of any significant testing. > But if the next month can be considered a kind of beta period, I guess > we'll be fine. No major changes coming up now, right? Yes, I consider 0.9.x as the beta series, especially starting from 0.9.8. There are no major changes planned. All plans are listed here: https://launchpad.net/dolfin/+milestone/0.9.11 https://launchpad.net/dolfin/+milestone/0.9.12 https://launchpad.net/dolfin/+milestone/1.0.0-rc1 > What about the book? I think it would be best to adapt the code examples > to rcN before 1.0.0 is released, in case they trigger bugs that must be fixed. Yes, all code examples should be adapted to work with rc-1 once it is released except for the chapters [hoffman-1/2] where we have made an exception to stay on the 0.8-something branch. -- Anders ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16/05/11 13:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard > wrote: > >> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" >>> wrote: >>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. >>> >>> I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo >>> documentation in particular. >>> >>> In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with >>> the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the >>> separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo >>> directories. Any objections? >> >> Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the >> documentation in one place, thus separating the documentation from >> the packages containing the code. >> > > I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. > I sympathise with this point too, but I'm coming around to the doc being with the code for maintainability. The doc would be in the same directory, but we we wouldn't be mixing doc and code in one file. We should start a new thread/blueprint on this. It doesn't impact on the imminent release. Garth > Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it > more obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it > easier to ensure valid documentation for stable releases. > > Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the > code for some of the same reasons? > > Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a > system that is maintainable. > > -- Marie > > >> Kristian >> >>> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment >>> slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve >>> email...) >>> >>> -- Marie >>> >>> Garth ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >>> ___ Mailing list: >>> https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : >>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] New releases
On 16 May 2011 16:35, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 16/05/11 13:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard >> wrote: >> >>> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of > UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements > to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of > DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: > > UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do > before a release. > I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo documentation in particular. In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any objections? >>> >>> Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the >>> documentation in one place, thus separating the documentation from >>> the packages containing the code. >>> >> >> I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. >> > > I sympathise with this point too, but I'm coming around to the doc being > with the code for maintainability. The doc would be in the same > directory, but we we wouldn't be mixing doc and code in one file. > > We should start a new thread/blueprint on this. It doesn't impact on the > imminent release. I think having the docs in the same repo as the software makes perfect sense. I can't see any reasons to split them. Martin > > Garth > >> Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it >> more obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it >> easier to ensure valid documentation for stable releases. >> >> Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the >> code for some of the same reasons? >> >> Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a >> system that is maintainable. >> >> -- Marie >> >> >>> Kristian >>> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) -- Marie > Garth > > ___ Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : > ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : > https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Ufl] [Dolfin] New releases
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:42:29PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > On 16 May 2011 16:35, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > > On 16/05/11 13:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > >> > >> On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" > wrote: > > > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of > > UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements > > to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of > > DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: > > > > UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do > > before a release. > > > > I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo > documentation in particular. > > In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with > the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the > separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo > directories. Any objections? > >>> > >>> Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the > >>> documentation in one place, thus separating the documentation from > >>> the packages containing the code. > >>> > >> > >> I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. > >> > > > > I sympathise with this point too, but I'm coming around to the doc being > > with the code for maintainability. The doc would be in the same > > directory, but we we wouldn't be mixing doc and code in one file. > > > > We should start a new thread/blueprint on this. It doesn't impact on the > > imminent release. It doesn't impact 0.9.11 but 1.0.0 is also pretty imminent so we should try to get to a conclusion quickly. Marie has already made some progress on setting this up, in particular looking at splitting up the documentation for various versions etc. > I think having the docs in the same repo as the software makes perfect > sense. I can't see any reasons to split them. There will still be a split between documentation of code (local .rst files in demo directories + code comments) and the rest (organization of the extracted documentation + web page + styling), which I think is good to have. -- Anders > Martin > > > > > Garth > > > >> Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it > >> more obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it > >> easier to ensure valid documentation for stable releases. > >> > >> Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the > >> code for some of the same reasons? > >> > >> Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a > >> system that is maintainable. > >> > >> -- Marie > >> > >> > >>> Kristian > >>> > (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment > slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve > email...) > > -- Marie > > > > Garth > > > > ___ Mailing list: > > https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : > > ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : > > https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : > > https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > ___ Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : > https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > > > ___ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl > Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] FFC 0.9.10 released
FFC version 0.9.10 has been released. Below is a summary of changes from the ChangeLog. 0.9.10 [2011-05-16] - Change license from GPL v3 or later to LGPL v3 or later - Add some schemes for low-order simplices - Request quadrature schemes by polynomial degree (not longer by number of points in each direction) - Get quadrature schemes via ffc.quadrature_schemes - Improved lock handling in JIT compiler - Include common_cell in form signature - Add possibility to set swig binary and swig path ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
Sounds good! > 1. Release 0.9.11now I guess this means sometime early this week? Johan > 2. Release 0.9.122011-05-31 > 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 > > No new features should be added after this point and all known > bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have > been fixed. > > 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary > 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready > > Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a > chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is > encouraged to test the release candidate. > > How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a > week). Opinions? > > Another thing to discuss is how to handle versioning of packages post > 1.0. It's practical for users if DOLFIN, UFL, FFC, FIAT have the same > version numbers. On the other hand, it's not practical for developers. > In particular, FIAT usually makes less frequent updates than the other > packages. > > Yet another thing to discuss is whether we want to require that all > 1.x versions work together, so for example one can assume that FFC > 1.0.3 works with DOLFIN 1.0.9. In general, I think we need to pay more > attention to versioning and compatibility post 1.0. > > Johannes has also mentioned to me a requirement in Debian for binary > compatibility with shared libraries. Johannes, could you say something > about this? > > -- > Anders > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > > Good idea. I just talked to Anders and Kent last week about the need > > for a testing period with feature freeze before 1.0 is released. After > > this release we should figure out how the release process up to 1.0 > > should be, also in relation with the book. > > > > Martin > > > > On 16 May 2011 12:13, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC > > > and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC > > > caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New > > > version numbers would be: > > > > > > UFL: 0.9.1 > > > FFC: 0.9.1 > > > DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > > > > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a > > > release. > > > > > > Garth > > > > > > ___ > > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > ___ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl > > Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On Monday May 16 2011 08:36:40 Johan Hake wrote: > Sounds good! > > > 1. Release 0.9.11now > > I guess this means sometime early this week? No, I guess it means now! ;) Sorry for the spam... Johan > Johan > > > 2. Release 0.9.122011-05-31 > > 3. Release 1.0.0-rc1 2011-06-14 > > > > No new features should be added after this point and all known > > bugs (unless we decide to push them to post 1.0) should have > > been fixed. > > > > 4. Release rc2, rc3, ... if necessary > > 5. Release 1.0.0 when ready > > > > Between 3 and 4, all depending packages (like cbc.solve etc) have a > > chance to make updates to any interface changes and everyone is > > encouraged to test the release candidate. > > > > How long should this window be? I'd like a very short window (like a > > week). Opinions? > > > > Another thing to discuss is how to handle versioning of packages post > > 1.0. It's practical for users if DOLFIN, UFL, FFC, FIAT have the same > > version numbers. On the other hand, it's not practical for developers. > > In particular, FIAT usually makes less frequent updates than the other > > packages. > > > > Yet another thing to discuss is whether we want to require that all > > 1.x versions work together, so for example one can assume that FFC > > 1.0.3 works with DOLFIN 1.0.9. In general, I think we need to pay more > > attention to versioning and compatibility post 1.0. > > > > Johannes has also mentioned to me a requirement in Debian for binary > > compatibility with shared libraries. Johannes, could you say something > > about this? > > > > -- > > Anders > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > > > Good idea. I just talked to Anders and Kent last week about the need > > > for a testing period with feature freeze before 1.0 is released. After > > > this release we should figure out how the release process up to 1.0 > > > should be, also in relation with the book. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 16 May 2011 12:13, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC > > > > and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC > > > > caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New > > > > version numbers would be: > > > > > > > > UFL: 0.9.1 > > > > FFC: 0.9.1 > > > > DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > > > > > > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a > > > > release. > > > > > > > > Garth > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > > > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > > > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > > ___ > > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl > > > Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net > > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl > > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > ___ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On 16. mai 2011, at 16:57, Anders Logg wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:42:29PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> On 16 May 2011 16:35, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16/05/11 13:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" >> wrote: >> >>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of >>> UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements >>> to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of >>> DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: >>> >>> UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 >>> >>> Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do >>> before a release. >>> >> >> I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo >> documentation in particular. >> >> In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with >> the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the >> separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo >> directories. Any objections? > > Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the > documentation in one place, thus separating the documentation from > the packages containing the code. > I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. >>> >>> I sympathise with this point too, but I'm coming around to the doc being >>> with the code for maintainability. The doc would be in the same >>> directory, but we we wouldn't be mixing doc and code in one file. >>> >>> We should start a new thread/blueprint on this. It doesn't impact on the >>> imminent release. > > It doesn't impact 0.9.11 but 1.0.0 is also pretty imminent so we > should try to get to a conclusion quickly. > It would be great to do this before 0.9.11 in order to have a release guinea pig for the doc/web. > Marie has already made some progress on setting this up, in particular > looking at splitting up the documentation for various versions etc. > >> I think having the docs in the same repo as the software makes perfect >> sense. I can't see any reasons to split them. > > There will still be a split between documentation of code (local .rst > files in demo directories + code comments) and the rest (organization > of the extracted documentation + web page + styling), which I think is > good to have. > Yes, me too. -- Marie > -- > Anders > > >> Martin >> >>> >>> Garth >>> Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it more obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it easier to ensure valid documentation for stable releases. Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the code for some of the same reasons? Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a system that is maintainable. -- Marie > Kristian > >> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment >> slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve >> email...) >> >> -- Marie >> >> >>> Garth >>> >>> ___ Mailing list: >>> https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : >>> ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : >>> https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : >>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> ___ Mailing list: >> https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >>> Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >> >> ___ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl >> Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On 16/05/11 17:01, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > > On 16. mai 2011, at 16:57, Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:42:29PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >>> On 16 May 2011 16:35, Garth N. Wells wrote: On 16/05/11 13:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard > wrote: > >> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" >>> wrote: >>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. >>> >>> I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo >>> documentation in particular. >>> >>> In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with >>> the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the >>> separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo >>> directories. Any objections? >> >> Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the >> documentation in one place, thus separating the documentation from >> the packages containing the code. >> > > I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. > I sympathise with this point too, but I'm coming around to the doc being with the code for maintainability. The doc would be in the same directory, but we we wouldn't be mixing doc and code in one file. We should start a new thread/blueprint on this. It doesn't impact on the imminent release. >> >> It doesn't impact 0.9.11 but 1.0.0 is also pretty imminent so we >> should try to get to a conclusion quickly. >> > > It would be great to do this before 0.9.11 in order to have a release guinea > pig for the doc/web. > Something for 0.9.12. Garth > >> Marie has already made some progress on setting this up, in particular >> looking at splitting up the documentation for various versions etc. >> >>> I think having the docs in the same repo as the software makes perfect >>> sense. I can't see any reasons to split them. >> >> There will still be a split between documentation of code (local .rst >> files in demo directories + code comments) and the rest (organization >> of the extracted documentation + web page + styling), which I think is >> good to have. >> > > Yes, me too. > > -- > Marie > >> -- >> Anders >> >> >>> Martin >>> Garth > Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it > more obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it > easier to ensure valid documentation for stable releases. > > Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the > code for some of the same reasons? > > Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a > system that is maintainable. > > -- Marie > > >> Kristian >> >>> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment >>> slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve >>> email...) >>> >>> -- Marie >>> >>> Garth ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >>> ___ Mailing list: >>> https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : >>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >>> ___ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl >>> Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> ___ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >> Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc > Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc > More help : https://help.launchpa
Re: [Ffc] [Dolfin] [Ufl] New releases
On 16. mai 2011, at 18:42, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > > > On 16/05/11 17:01, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 16:57, Anders Logg wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:42:29PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: On 16 May 2011 16:35, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 16/05/11 13:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard >> wrote: >> >>> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of > UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements > to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of > DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: > > UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do > before a release. > I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo documentation in particular. In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any objections? >>> >>> Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the >>> documentation in one place, thus separating the documentation from >>> the packages containing the code. >>> >> >> I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. >> > > I sympathise with this point too, but I'm coming around to the doc being > with the code for maintainability. The doc would be in the same > directory, but we we wouldn't be mixing doc and code in one file. > > We should start a new thread/blueprint on this. It doesn't impact on the > imminent release. >>> >>> It doesn't impact 0.9.11 but 1.0.0 is also pretty imminent so we >>> should try to get to a conclusion quickly. >>> >> >> It would be great to do this before 0.9.11 in order to have a release guinea >> pig for the doc/web. >> > > Something for 0.9.12. > Yes, I realized... Great job at releasing everthing! -- Marie > Garth > >> >>> Marie has already made some progress on setting this up, in particular >>> looking at splitting up the documentation for various versions etc. >>> I think having the docs in the same repo as the software makes perfect sense. I can't see any reasons to split them. >>> >>> There will still be a split between documentation of code (local .rst >>> files in demo directories + code comments) and the rest (organization >>> of the extracted documentation + web page + styling), which I think is >>> good to have. >>> >> >> Yes, me too. >> >> -- >> Marie >> >>> -- >>> Anders >>> >>> Martin > > Garth > >> Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it >> more obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it >> easier to ensure valid documentation for stable releases. >> >> Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the >> code for some of the same reasons? >> >> Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a >> system that is maintainable. >> >> -- Marie >> >> >>> Kristian >>> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) -- Marie > Garth > > ___ Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : > ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : > https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dol...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl Post to : u...@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >>> ___ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >>> Post to : dol...@lists.launch
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16 May 2011 14:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > > On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: >>> I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version numbers would be: UFL: 0.9.1 FFC: 0.9.1 DOLFIN: 0.9.12 Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a release. >>> >>> I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo documentation >>> in particular. >>> >>> In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the demos, >>> I think we should move the .rst files from the separate fenics-doc repo to >>> the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any objections? >> >> Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the documentation >> in one place, thus separating the documentation from the packages >> containing the code. >> > > I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. I was more objecting to changing the documentation design/philosophy again. :( > Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it more > obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it easier to > ensure valid documentation for stable releases. I bet that the .rst files for the demos will not get updated just by moving them to dolfin/demo (perhaps only the first week), unless you change (a) to: (a) run the script test/verify_demo_code_snippets.py as part of 'make test' in dolfin. I agree on (b) > Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the code > for some of the same reasons? Possibly, again, this has changed so many times that I forgot why. > Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a system > that is maintainable. We'll never disagree on this one. We're currently copying the demo files (.py, .cpp, .ufl) anyway, it should be just as easy to copy any .rst files. Perhaps the documentation of the demos could be self contained? Such that we have an index.rst file in dolfin/demo which includes the rest? Then it will be easy for dolfin developers to run a 'make html' locally in the dolfin/demo directory to test that it works. We can just use the Sphinx default styles. Kristian > -- > Marie > > >> Kristian >> >>> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment slightly >>> unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) >>> >>> -- >>> Marie >>> >>> Garth ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >>> ___ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc >>> Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New releases
On 16. mai 2011, at 19:58, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > On 16 May 2011 14:33, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> >> On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: >> >>> On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes wrote: On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells" wrote: > I suggest now would be a good point to make new releases of UFL, FFC and > DOLFIN. There have been a number of improvements to UFL, FFC caching, > and there have been a good number of DOLFIN bugs fixes. New version > numbers would be: > > UFL: 0.9.1 > FFC: 0.9.1 > DOLFIN: 0.9.12 > > Jump in quick if there is anything that you would like do before a > release. > I have one thing relating to the documentation, and the demo documentation in particular. In order to more easily keep the demo documentation in sync with the demos, I think we should move the .rst files from the separate fenics-doc repo to the corresponding dolfin demo directories. Any objections? >>> >>> Yes, the whole point of fenics-docs was to collect the documentation >>> in one place, thus separating the documentation from the packages >>> containing the code. >>> >> >> I understand that point, but I don't see it working that well. > > I was more objecting to changing the documentation > design/philosophy again. :( > >> Having the demo .rst files with the dolfin demos would (a) make it more >> obvious to update them when updating the code and (b) make it easier to >> ensure valid documentation for stable releases. > > I bet that the .rst files for the demos will not get updated just by > moving them to dolfin/demo (perhaps only the first week), It will make a difference for me, but maybe that's just me. > unless you > change (a) to: > (a) run the script test/verify_demo_code_snippets.py as part of 'make > test' in dolfin. I think this sounds like a good idea. > I agree on (b) > >> Wasn't the API documentation for the DOLFIN library moved in with the code >> for some of the same reasons? > > Possibly, again, this has changed so many times that I forgot why. > >> Writing documentation isn't that fun, so I would like to aim for a system >> that is maintainable. > > We'll never disagree on this one. > > We're currently copying the demo files (.py, .cpp, .ufl) anyway, it > should be just as easy to copy any .rst files. > > Perhaps the documentation of the demos could be self contained? > Such that we have an index.rst file in dolfin/demo which includes the rest? > Then it will be easy for dolfin developers to run a 'make html' > locally in the dolfin/demo directory to test that it works. > We can just use the Sphinx default styles. > Maybe, I'm not quite sure what it entails. I'll open up a new blueprint when I get back on Wednesday, unless someone beats me to it. -- Marie > Kristian > >> -- >> Marie >> >> >>> Kristian >>> (I'm on very flaky wifi until Wednesday morning and at the moment slightly unable to do anything but occasionally retrieve email...) -- Marie > Garth > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc > Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
