Subject: [Fenics] Version numbers

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:15:47 +0200

We've started on this discussion before but have never come to a
conclusion.

What version numbers should we use for FEniCS itself and the
individual packages?

Before, we have let all packages have their own version numbers, and
then released FEniCS yy--mm (like 2011-06, 2011-12 etc) containing a
collection of the other packages with some specific (but unrelated)
version numbers.

Another option is to use the same version numbers for all packages,
including FEniCS itself.

The question comes up now and needs to be resolved since Johannes is
about to create a release of the meta-package fenics, either 1.0-beta
or 2011-08.

Thoughts?

--
Anders

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:52:37 -0700

Not a big deal for me. 

But personally I get somewhat confused with year, month versioning numbers, a 
la Ubuntu and such. But then that is probably just me :P

Johan

On Monday August 15 2011 07:15:47 Anders Logg wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> Post to     : [email-masked]
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

---

From: Kent-Andre Mardal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:37:44 +0200

Different packages evolve in different ways, some are very stable, while
others are not. It seems unnecessary to make all have the same numbering.

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:48:26 +0200

True, but the last 5 or so releases have all (with some exceptions)
been coordinated, like the last one which was 1.0-beta for all
components. But I see the point.

--
Anders

---

From: Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:28:53 +0200

Agree with Kent. For example UFL and UFC will hopefully be more stable
than DOLFIN.

FEniCS-2011-08 does not sound like a beta though,
can it be FEniCS-2011-08-beta? Or FEniCS-2011-09-beta
since the final will likely be FEniCS-2011-09?

Martin

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:57:32 +0200

> since the final will likely be FEniCS-2011-09?

One possibility that Johannes has suggested is to let the FEniCS
package number follow the DOLFIN package number. For most users, that
is the most interesting number.

--
Anders

---

From: Kent-Andre Mardal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:59:05 +0200

> is the most interesting number.
Sounds good to me.

Kent

---

From: Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:49:45 +0200

>> is the most interesting number.

Ok!

Martin

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:58:50 +0200

>>> is the most interesting number.

Ok, I'm preparing the new packages as fenics-1.0-beta then.

Johannes

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:46:43 +0200

> Ok, I'm preparing the new packages as fenics-1.0-beta then.

Sounds good!

--
Anders