-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/03/13 12:57, Marie E. Rognes wrote: > On 03/05/2013 01:38 PM, Anders Logg wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:08:47AM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >>>> The ufc-geometry branches of UFC, FFC and DOLFIN have been >>>> merged into trunk. In addition, the FFC branch merges in >>>> Martin's addition of the new uflacs compiler backend to FFC. >>>> (Martin can comment on the status of the uflacs backend.) >>>> >>>> The changes in ufc-geometry were motivated by a cleanup of >>>> the codesnippets in FFC and a simplification (?) of the UFC >>>> interface. Some changes: >>>> >>>> - Introduce header ufc_geometry.h in UFC to replace >>>> codesnippets. Quite a few codesnippets remain and should be >>>> migrated to the same header file. >>>> >>>> - Use flattened arrays for all data structures. See comment >>>> on top of ufc_geometry.h for some remarks on the efficiency >>>> vs nested arrays and flattened/nested std::vector. >>>> >>>> - Remove ufc::cell as a common data structure holding a bunch >>>> of data that may not be needed and therefore should not need >>>> to be updated. Instead, all data should be passed by >>>> primitive C data types. >>> Very nice! >>>> Some of these are work in progress and more work needs to be >>>> done. Before this, I'm going to merge UFC into FFC (if there >>>> are no objections) to simplify the continued work as it >>>> involves changes on both ends. >>> Since we have added/changed quite a bit of functionality since >>> 1.1 (PDEs on surface, changes in the meaning of dx for >>> instance); would it be an idea to make a release before >>> starting to merge projects? >> Yes, why not. This can be 1.2. In that case, the release should >> come pretty quick since I would like to go ahead with the merging >> now. > > Yes, definitely. I've just spoken to our new FEniCS release manager > -- he will follow-up asap :-) > > -- Marie > >> Then I suggest 2.0 after the merge. For UFC (then bundled with >> FFC) the version can be x.2.0 (?) since 2.0 and 2.1 have already >> been released for UFC. Then we synchronize the version numbers >> starting with 3.0.
Is FEniCS following a version numbering scheme s.a. semantic versioning (http://semver.org/)? If so, will the merge introduce backwards-incompatible API changes which would require incrementing the major version number? Florian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlE2dRwACgkQ8Z6llsctAxbDdgCdHhLd0bWqcf1+ZRdGbbUVVqgn nRwAniKbOhwp1twGQ1tGWrKTGHbdV0Er =6d01 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
