Hi all,
It is almost three months from the last release (2008.4), so I would like to roll out the 2009.1 by the beginning of the next week.
I am aware that this list has been rather silent recently, but if some lurkers are still here, I would very appreciate testing/reporting bugs for the development version, see below.
If you have some comments on how to improve our web site(s) [1], [2], do not hesitate and post it here, please. I am aware that the documentation is lacking, we are working on that, as well as on fixing the issues.
[1] http://sfepy.org [2] http://sfepy.kme.zcu.cz
To help with the testing, proceed as follows:
- Make sure the prerequisities [3] are installed.
- Get the sources:
$ git clone git://git.sympy.org/sfepy.git
or: go to [4] and download the tarball of the latest snapshot
Build extension modules: $ cd sfepy $ make # you may need to tweak site_cfg.py, see site_cfg_template.py
Run tests: $ ./runTests.py
all the tests should pass: 26 test file(s) executed in 78.13 s, 0 failure(s) of 34 test(s
in case some tests fail, rerun them as follows:
$ ./runTests.py tests/test_<failing test file>.py --debug
and post the output here, or (better) as a new issue at [5]
- Try examples:
$ python examples/compare_elastic_materials.py $ python examples/rs_correctors.py
- Try some scripts:
$ ./script/convert_mesh.py -h $ ./script/blockgen.py -h
[3] http://code.google.com/p/sfepy/wiki/Installation [4] http://code.google.com/p/sfepy/wiki/Downloads?tm=2 [5] http://code.google.com/p/sfepy/issues/list
Thank you! r.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Hi all,
It is almost three months from the last release (2008.4), so I would like to roll out the 2009.1 by the beginning of the next week.
I am aware that this list has been rather silent recently, but if some lurkers are still here, I would very appreciate testing/reporting bugs for the development version, see below.
I'll try to do that, but probably not today, as I am very busy.
Ondrej
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Hi all,
It is almost three months from the last release (2008.4), so I would like to roll out the 2009.1 by the beginning of the next week.
I am aware that this list has been rather silent recently, but if some lurkers are still here, I would very appreciate testing/reporting bugs for the development version, see below.
I'll try to do that, but probably not today, as I am very busy.
Thanks! I do not have a fixed release date, so take your time.
r.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Hi all,
It is almost three months from the last release (2008.4), so I would like to roll out the 2009.1 by the beginning of the next week.
I am aware that this list has been rather silent recently, but if some lurkers are still here, I would very appreciate testing/reporting bugs for the development version, see below.
I'll try to do that, but probably not today, as I am very busy.
Thanks! I do not have a fixed release date, so take your time.
In return, you can help us with the sympy release --- when I release beta2, I'll ask for testing. :)
Ondrej
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Hi all,
It is almost three months from the last release (2008.4), so I would like to roll out the 2009.1 by the beginning of the next week.
I am aware that this list has been rather silent recently, but if some lurkers are still here, I would very appreciate testing/reporting bugs for the development version, see below. I'll try to do that, but probably not today, as I am very busy. Thanks! I do not have a fixed release date, so take your time.
In return, you can help us with the sympy release --- when I release beta2, I'll ask for testing. :)
Good. I have neglected sympy for some time, so I will have occasion to look at it again. I have to switch to never-sleeping mode like you :)
r.
Robert Cimrman wrote:
Hi all,
It is almost three months from the last release (2008.4), so I would like to roll out the 2009.1 by the beginning of the next week.
I am aware that this list has been rather silent recently, but if some lurkers are still here, I would very appreciate testing/reporting bugs for the development version, see below.
If you have some comments on how to improve our web site(s) [1], [2], do not hesitate and post it here, please. I am aware that the documentation is lacking, we are working on that, as well as on fixing the issues.
[1] http://sfepy.org [2] http://sfepy.kme.zcu.cz
To help with the testing, proceed as follows:
- Make sure the prerequisities [3] are installed.
- Get the sources:
$ git clone git://git.sympy.org/sfepy.git
or: go to [4] and download the tarball of the latest snapshot
Build extension modules: $ cd sfepy $ make # you may need to tweak site_cfg.py, see site_cfg_template.py
Run tests: $ ./runTests.py
all the tests should pass: 26 test file(s) executed in 78.13 s, 0 failure(s) of 34 test(s
in case some tests fail, rerun them as follows:
$ ./runTests.py tests/test_<failing test file>.py --debug
and post the output here, or (better) as a new issue at [5]
- Try examples:
$ python examples/compare_elastic_materials.py $ python examples/rs_correctors.py
- Try some scripts:
$ ./script/convert_mesh.py -h $ ./script/blockgen.py -h
[3] http://code.google.com/p/sfepy/wiki/Installation [4] http://code.google.com/p/sfepy/wiki/Downloads?tm=2 [5] http://code.google.com/p/sfepy/issues/list
Hi Robert,
All went well on my debian/sid/amd64 box! And when I check the web site, the documentation is improving.
Thank you! r.
You deserve most of the thanks. :-)
BTW, is the mercurial repository in sync with the git one? (I did a git clone just to make sure I'm using the latest.)
Regards, ST
Hi ST,
LUK ShunTim wrote:
Hi Robert,
All went well on my debian/sid/amd64 box! And when I check the web site, the documentation is improving.
I am glad to hear that, thanks for your feedback!
BTW, is the mercurial repository in sync with the git one? (I did a git clone just to make sure I'm using the latest.)
The mercurial repository is not synchronized with the git one. What do you think is better - to remove it completely, or to keep it synced?
I am in favor of option one - we left the mercurial repo there just for the transition period when it was not clear how fast I would learn git well enough. Now I am a happy git user, so removing the old stuff would simplify things.
Regards, r.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Hi ST,
LUK ShunTim wrote:
Hi Robert,
All went well on my debian/sid/amd64 box! And when I check the web site, the documentation is improving.
I am glad to hear that, thanks for your feedback!
BTW, is the mercurial repository in sync with the git one? (I did a git clone just to make sure I'm using the latest.)
The mercurial repository is not synchronized with the git one. What do you think is better - to remove it completely, or to keep it synced?
I am in favor of option one - we left the mercurial repo there just for the transition period when it was not clear how fast I would learn git well enough. Now I am a happy git user, so removing the old stuff would simplify things.
+1
Ondrej
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
Hi ST,
LUK ShunTim wrote:
Hi Robert,
All went well on my debian/sid/amd64 box! And when I check the web site, the documentation is improving. I am glad to hear that, thanks for your feedback!
BTW, is the mercurial repository in sync with the git one? (I did a git clone just to make sure I'm using the latest.) The mercurial repository is not synchronized with the git one. What do you think is better - to remove it completely, or to keep it synced?
I am in favor of option one - we left the mercurial repo there just for the transition period when it was not clear how fast I would learn git well enough. Now I am a happy git user, so removing the old stuff would simplify things.
+1
It's removed now. We may provide alternative forms later.
r.
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:46 +0100, Robert Cimrman wrote:
I have a 64 bit heron (8.04 Ubuntu), and there are no errors.
examples worked. scripts ran generating a simple block and converting.
Thanks for providing sfepy.
Regards, -osman
Hi Osman!
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM, osman <os...@fuse.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:46 +0100, Robert Cimrman wrote:
I have a 64 bit heron (8.04 Ubuntu), and there are no errors.
examples worked. scripts ran generating a simple block and converting.
Thanks for providing sfepy.
Thanks very much for testing it!
Ondrej
P.S. sfepy list has now 24/7 answering, because I work when Robert sleeps and vice versa, that's pretty cool. :)
Ondrej Certik wrote:
Hi Osman!
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM, osman <os...@fuse.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:46 +0100, Robert Cimrman wrote:
I have a 64 bit heron (8.04 Ubuntu), and there are no errors.
examples worked. scripts ran generating a simple block and converting.
Thanks for providing sfepy.
Thanks very much for testing it!
Ondrej
P.S. sfepy list has now 24/7 answering, because I work when Robert sleeps and vice versa, that's pretty cool. :)
I usually miss the weekends, otherwise it's true. :)
BTW. I am curious what would people on this list like (eventually) to use sfepy for?
Thank you for your feedback! r.
hi Osman!
osman wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:46 +0100, Robert Cimrman wrote:
I have a 64 bit heron (8.04 Ubuntu), and there are no errors.
examples worked. scripts ran generating a simple block and converting.
Thanks for providing sfepy.
Good, I will try to make the release today. Thank you for testing it!
r.
participants (4)
-
LUK ShunTim -
Ondrej Certik -
osman -
Robert Cimrman