Subject: [UFC-dev] For release

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:15:26 +0100

Hello,

as we are speaking of a release soon, I just want to have your final opinion 
on the ufc versioning.

Garth suggested that we have distinction between the file ufc.h and the the 
package UFC. I think this is all fine.

I suppose the consequence of this is that the "point" would not be visable 
anywhere but in the makedist script that creates the tarball?

Any comments?

Johan

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:45:50 +0100

> anywhere but in the makedist script that creates the tarball?

Do you mean we release 1.1.1 now but keep the version number in ufc.h
at 1.1?

What happens when if we make the two changes suggested by Garth
(local_dimension and max_local_dimension) in ufc::dof_map? Should it
then be 1.2 or 2.0? If we add the two functions and make them virtual
but not pure virtual, then DOLFIN would require the new ufc.h header
file (as it will call max_local_dimension) but old forms compiled for
1.1 would still work so it's sort of backwards compatible. We could
release 1.2 now with the new functions and wait until 2.0 to make the
functions pure virtual along with some other possible changes.

-- 
Anders

---

From: Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:55:59 +0100

> functions pure virtual along with some other possible changes.

Good idea to do 1.2 now anyway if that's not too much trouble.
There are several suggestions in the todo file which should be
part of a 2.0 release, so that's more work.

Martin

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:58:43 +0100

On Monday 16 February 2009 21:45:50 Anders Logg wrote:
> > as we are speaking of a release soon, I just want to have your final
> > opinion on the ufc versioning.
> >
> > Garth suggested that we have distinction between the file ufc.h and the
> > the package UFC. I think this is all fine.
> >
> > I suppose the consequence of this is that the "point" would not be
> > visable anywhere but in the makedist script that creates the tarball?
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Johan
>

I am happy with 1.2. I think the mentioned changes had not matured when we 
discussed this in the dolfin-dev thread previously. 

Then we do not have to make a point release, but rather stick to the 
major.minor way we have now.

Johan

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:11:27 +0100

> part of a 2.0 release, so that's more work.

ok, let's do 1.2 now. Any objections to the suggested additions?

What about the other suggested changes listed in TODO. Should they
wait for 2.0?

-- 
Anders

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:14:42 +0000

> ok, let's do 1.2 now. Any objections to the suggested additions?

Let's do 1.1.1 so we can release DOLFIN, FFC, etc, now. We can then make 
the changes in the development version and release 1.2 with the next 
DOLFIN, etc.

Garth

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UFC-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ufc-dev