In particular, Firedrake also uses Instant :). Please don't merge instant
into Dolfin

On Wednesday, January 8, 2014, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:

>  instant is called by ffc, and also useful (and used) in other non-fenics
> contexts.
>
>  Martin
>
>
> On 8 January 2014 13:07, Garth N. Wells <gn...@cam.ac.uk<javascript:_e({}, 
> 'cvml', 'gn...@cam.ac.uk');>
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-08 11:33, David Ham wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Having discussed this around the Firedrake mob (except Florian who is
>>> still away), we don't have any objection to UFC going into FFC.
>>> Indeed, since our FFC branch does indeed have a non-UFC backend, it
>>> might even make us cleaner and move us towards the point at which we
>>> can start talking with you about merging our stuff into trunk.
>>>
>>> One small issue which will crop up is that FFC uses setuptools while
>>> UFC has a cmake build process. We would really like a combined package
>>> to be installable with setuptools (I don't expect this would cause any
>>> huge issues).
>>>
>>>
>>  I'd suggest that FFC and UFC keep their own config/build systems (with
>> the C code that crept into FFC being cleaned out), and have a top-level
>> config/build script for installing both packages and running tests on both
>> packages.
>>
>> With uflacs eventually being merged into FFC, that will leave us with:
>>
>> - UFL
>> - FIAT
>> - FFC + backends
>> - Instant
>> - DOLFIN
>>
>> Is Instant used by any projects/packages other than DOLFIN? If not, we
>> could keep the Instant repo for development and just copy instant/master
>> into DOLFIN when needed and not bother with Instant releases, leaving us in
>> terms of user packages and releases with:
>>
>> - UFL
>> - FIAT
>> - FFC + backends
>> - DOLFIN
>>
>> Four packages is lot better than where we were a year ago (which was 7).
>>
>> Garth
>>
>>  We would be less happy about UFL going into FFC, as we think that
>>> breaks an important abstraction. We would be really, really unhappy
>>> about any of the above being merged with Dolfin, as that would give us
>>> a Dolfin dependency which is really non-trivial. However neither of
>>> those merges are being proposed right now, so I'm not sure we need to
>>> have that discussion now.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 8 January 2014 08:03, Martin Sandve Alnæs 
>>> <marti...@simula.no<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'marti...@simula.no');>
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   +1 to merging ufc into ffc.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather not merge in ufl (yet).
>>>>
>>>> I plan to merge uflacs into ffc at a later date but not yet.
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice if we then split out the compiled stuff from ffc
>>>> into a separate python module and place all python modules from ufc
>>>> and ffc in a shared src/ or site-packages/ directory, as this makes
>>>> it easier to add to python path without installation for running
>>>> tests.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>> 7. jan. 2014 23:23 skrev "Anders Logg" <l...@chalmers.se<javascript:_e({}, 
>>>> 'cvml', 'l...@chalmers.se');>>
>>>> følgende:
>>>>
>>>>   On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:12:51PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We’ve discussed over the past year consolidating FEniCS
>>>>>>
>>>>> packages. The motivations are:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Fewer packages for users to install
>>>>>> - Less confusion over dependency versions
>>>>>> - Simpler development and testing (fewer cross-package
>>>>>>
>>>>> dependencies and package tests that depend on other packages)
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Reduced burden of making releases (which will hopefully lead
>>>>>>
>>>>> to more frequent releases)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that the first FEniCS release from git/Bitbucket has been
>>>>>>
>>>>> made,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that we start evolving towards consolidation (rather
>>>>>>
>>>>> than
>>>>>
>>>>>> taking any radical steps). As a first step, I propose that we
>>>>>>
>>>>> merge
>>>>>
>>>>>> FFC and UFC into one package. This doesn’t mean that FFC and
>>>>>>
>>>>> UFC are
>>>>>
>>>>>> suddenly deeply linked, but that UFC becomes one of the
>>>>>>
>>>>> implemented
>>>>>
>>>>>> FFC targets (and at first, the only).  Longer term, having
>>>>>> backends/targets in FFC will make the addition of new
>>>>>>
>>>>> generation
>>>>>
>>>>>> targets easier to develop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please respond with thoughts and opinions on merging FFC and
>>>>>>
>>>>> UFC!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm very positive to this idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think UFL could also be merged into the same project. I know
>>>>> there
>>>>> will be objections to this from those who only use UFL (David Ham
>>>>> objected last time I suggested this), but still think it would be
>>>>> possible to resolve this by adding an option to only install UFL,
>>>>> something like
>>>>>
>>>>> cd ufl && sudo python setup.py install
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing to consider is Debian/Ubuntu packages. I believe
>>>>> some
>>>>> work will be involved there as well (to apply for new packages
>>>>> and
>>>>> adjust dependencies), so perhaps it would not be optimal to make
>>>>> many
>>>>> "small" changes to the package organization? Or is it easy?
>>>>> Johannes
>>>>> can comment on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anders
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> fenics mailing list
>>>>> fenics@fenicsproject.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>>>>> 'fenics@fenicsproject.org');>
>>>>>  http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics [1]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Dr David Ham
>>> Departments of Mathematics and Computing
>>> Imperial College London
>>>
>>>  http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/david.ham [2]
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
>>> [2] http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/david.ham
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fenics mailing list
>>> fenics@fenicsproject.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>>> 'fenics@fenicsproject.org');>
>>> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Dr David Ham
Departments of Mathematics and Computing
Imperial College London

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/david.ham
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
fenics@fenicsproject.org
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics

Reply via email to