Subject: [Fenics] Upcoming release

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:10:59 +0100

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

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:17:45 +0100

> [2] DOLFIN, FFC, Instant, UFC (2.2.x) and UFL are needed

Sounds great. I don't think we should need to wait a week. As soon as
the buildbot is green we can make a release. Then 1.2.1 can follow if
we find (more) bugs.

--
Anders

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:56:58 +0100

I suggest we make 1.0.2, and 1.1.1 releases too, but I guess that was
already on your mind?

Johan

On 03/05/2013 05:10 PM, Johannes Ring wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> Post to     : [email-masked]
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 07:08:04 +0000

> I suggest we make 1.0.2, and 1.1.1 releases too, but I guess that was

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

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:30:12 +0100

> of work and (b) encourage users to update . I wouldn't bother with

I agree but won't object to 1.1.1.

(I general, we need to decrease the overhead in all ways we can and
make the development and release process as lean as possible. Hence
the suggestion for a unification of repositories.)

--
Anders

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:31:53 +0100

> of work and (b) encourage users to update . I wouldn't bother with

Do you mean 1.1.1 or 1.0.2 or both? Then why do we bother backporting
bug fixes to these branches? I think as long as we do that we need to
release them too.

This is not sustainable as it can quickly grow out of hands, so we need
to stop backporting at some stage. I suggest we stop backporting to a
branch when there exists a stable branch with a higher number. This mean
we stop backporting to 1.1.x after the 1.2.0 release. If this should
work we also need to make a point release from that branch before it
rendered backporting dead. If we do this we need to update our
development model with a another branch (1.2.x) and a chainsawed (1.1.x)
branch.

I guess 1.0.x branch is a bit special as it is so tightly connected with
the book, and we therefore need to keep that for a while. That is our
LTS branch in Ubuntu terms.

Johan

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:39:26 +0100

> bug fixes to these branches? I think as long as we do that we need to

Agree. I will make the following releases:

1.2.x:
 DOLFIN 1.2.0
 FFC 1.2.0
 Instant 1.2.0
 UFC 2.2.0
 UFL 1.2.0

1.1.x:
 DOLFIN 1.1.1
 UFC 2.1.1

1.0.x:
 UFC 2.0.7

Johannes

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:42:47 +0000

> bug fixes to these branches? I think as long as we do that we need to

I don't bother with back porting ;).

I would suggest we release more frequently and forget about back
porting.  Do we really want to advocate users using one of three
supported versions?  One is best, two is bearable.

Garth

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:53:25 +0100

> the buildbot is green we can make a release. Then 1.2.1 can follow if

ok, I have made the branches for the 1.2.x series and set the expected
release date to Friday March 8.

Johannes

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:58:04 +0000

> release date to Friday March 8.

Can I squeeze in our HDF5 updates? I'm just double-checking the tests now.

Garth

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:59:28 +0100

> Can I squeeze in our HDF5 updates? I'm just double-checking the tests now.

ok!

Johannes

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:01:07 +0000

>> Can I squeeze in our HDF5 updates? I'm just double-checking the tests now.

I pushed the changes to lp:dolfin.

Garth

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:09:22 +0100

> I pushed the changes to lp:dolfin.

Yes, and I merged and pushed the changes to lp:dolfin/1.2.x, but I
didn't receive any commit mail from Launchpad. DOLFIN Core Team is
subscribed, so I don't know why it didn't work.

Johannes

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:31:40 +0100

> I don't bother with back porting ;).

We have noticed ;)

> supported versions?  One is best, two is bearable.

Sounds reasonable, but it differ from the release model we have agreed
on. We could probably discuss this at FEniCS13.

Johan

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:23:37 +0100

> release date to Friday March 8.

The buildbot is not green and we have a few bugs targeted at DOLFIN
1.1.1 (but also affecting 1.2.0) that needs to be fixed before the
release:

  https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1100324
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1095679
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1143977

The release will therefore be postponed to next week.

Johannes

---

From: "Marie E. Rognes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:50:23 +0100

>    https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1095679

This bug should be fixed in trunk now, Johannes could you port to the 
relevant other branches?

--
Marie

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:51:58 +0100

ok!

Johannes

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:15:23 +0100

There is currently one bug holding back the release:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/dolfin/+bug/1143977

Is there an easy fix to this bug?

We also have this:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/dolfin/+bug/1153559

This is the reason for the two red OS X buildbots, but I'm not sure if
we should let this hold back the release as this has been a problem
since at least DOLFIN 1.0.0.

Johannes

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:20:35 +0100

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/dolfin/+bug/1143977

Fixed now.

--
Anders

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:04:54 +0100

The buildbot is finally green for the 1.2.x series:

http://fenicsproject.org:8010/console?category=dolfin.1.2.x&category=ffc.1.2.x&category=instant.1.2.x&category=ufc.2.2.x&category=ufl.1.2.x

I will make the 1.2.0 release either this weekend or on Monday.

Johannes

---

From: "Marie E. Rognes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:05:17 +0100

> I will make the 1.2.0 release either this weekend or on Monday.

Great!

--
Marie

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:12:40 +0100

> I will make the 1.2.0 release either this weekend or on Monday.

Great, now we only need to get trunk green.

Should that wait until after the git transition since there will be
quite a few things to fix after that as a result of the change of
repositories?

--
Anders

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:15:15 +0800

> Great, now we only need to get trunk green.

I think we can proceed with the release if 1.2 green even if trunk is broken.

Garth

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:18:06 +0100

> I think we can proceed with the release if 1.2 green even if trunk is broken.

Agree.

My questions was more if we can proceed with the conversion to git
even if trunk is broken on the buildbot. I think it should at least
pass the tests locally for more than one developer. I'll branch a
fresh copy and check that it works for me.

--
Anders

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:27:18 +0100

> fresh copy and check that it works for me.

What exactly is needed now to run the tests?

./cmake/scripts/download-data
./cmake/scripts/generate-all

?

Johannes

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:29:25 +0100

> ./cmake/scripts/generate-all

The updated version of

  cmake/scripts/generate-all

that I just pushed. Some of it may be overkill, but we can figure that
out as we go.

--
Anders

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:30:37 +0100

> that I just pushed. Some of it may be overkill, but we can figure that

ok, I will add that as a step on the buildbot.

Johannes

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:40:50 +0100

> ok, I will add that as a step on the buildbot.

Hmm... Which script generates the docstrings? I can't find it. I
thought it was handled by generate-swig-interface.

--
Anders

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:32:20 +0100

A wild guess:

  generate-swig-docstrings

;)

but it seems like you have removed it.

Johan

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:34:39 +0100

> but it seems like you have removed it.

Ooops. I'm relying too much on grep... Will add it back.

--
Anders

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:09:54 +0100

> but it seems like you have removed it.

Everything builds fine now, including demos, with a fresh clone of
DOLFIN built with cmake.local (which also generates all necessary
files).

But the following line makes the unit tests fail:

  from dolfin_utils.commands import getstatusoutput

This works fine when typed into a Python terminal. This is likely the
result of moving the DOLFIN wrappers over to FFC, but I can't figure
it out at the moment. Will look at it later unless someone else can
spot it first.

--
Anders

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:33:23 +0100

The problem seems to be that the install directory for DOLFIN is not
in the PYTHONPATH when running make runtests. Where is this set?

--
Anders

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 06:30:51PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
>   Use instants version instead?
>   Johan

> Referenser
>   1. mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Patrick Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:19:09 +0000

Hi,

> I will make the 1.2.0 release either this weekend or on Monday.

Is there any update on when the release will occur, and when
ubuntu packages will be available?

Patrick

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:38:17 +0100

> ubuntu packages will be available?

1.2.0 was released on Sunday. I'm still working on the Ubuntu packages
but I hope to finish today. However, there is currently a 11 hour
queue on the Launchpad build farm, so it will take some time before
they are available in the PPA.

BTW, for OS X users, I have uploaded the 1.2.0 binary packages here:

http://fenicsproject.org/pub/software/fenics/fenics-1.2.0-osx10.6.dmg
http://fenicsproject.org/pub/software/fenics/fenics-1.2.0-osx10.7.dmg

Anyone with a Mac: please try it out and let me know how it works out.

Johannes