On 05/16/2011 08:13 PM, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
On 16. mai 2011, at 19:58, Kristian Ølgaard<[email protected]> wrote:
On 16 May 2011 14:33, Marie E. Rognes<[email protected]> wrote:
On 16. mai 2011, at 14:17, Kristian Ølgaard<[email protected]> wrote:
On 16 May 2011 13:49, Marie E. Rognes<[email protected]> wrote:
On 16. mai 2011, at 12:13, "Garth N. Wells"<[email protected]> 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.
I've opened up a new blueprint (containing the last part of this
discussion) on fenics-doc, added some milestones to fenics-doc and
targeted some more blueprints. I've only subscribed the fenics core team
to these, so anyone else wanting to follow the launchpad discussion,
subscribe.
However, blueprints relating to dolfin/documentation/web seem to be
partly in lp:dolfin, partly in lp:fenics-doc and partly in
lp:fenics-web. Perhaps some consolidation could be beneficial?
--
Marie
--
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 : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
