Subject: [UFC-dev] Release candidate 1.0-rc1?

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:29:30 +0100

Is the current version of UFC ready to be announced as release
candidate 1 for version 1.0?

Do we want to include evaluation of a polynomial basis (Bernstein or
Dubiner as we discussed a few days ago) in 1.0 or do we wait until
2.0?

/Anders

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:00:53 +0100 (CET)

> candidate 1 for version 1.0?

fine by me,

> Dubiner as we discussed a few days ago) in 1.0 or do we wait until

I havn't thought it properly through yet.
But I plan to include this in the finite elements
in SyFi.

We should wait.

Kent

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:04:58 +0100 (CET)

> candidate 1 for version 1.0?

Why use the convention 1.0, 2.0 etc on UFC while the rest of the projects
are 0.1, 0.2 etc?

I guess we should write some documentation first.

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

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:16:57 +0100

> Why use the convention 1.0, 2.0 etc on UFC while the rest of the projects

Since the hope is that there will be very few releases of UFC. We
should be very conservative with new releases.

> I guess we should write some documentation first.

Yes, definitely.

/Anders

---

From: "Martin Sandve Alnæs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:16:55 +0100

> > > Dubiner as we discussed a few days ago) in 1.0 or do we wait until

I wasn't aware of that discussion. What about evaluating derivatives
of basis functions? Or is this the same issue?

martin

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:20:22 +0100

> of basis functions? Or is this the same issue?

Yes, it's sort of the same issue.

Another thing I just realized that we might want to add is something
that tells the user (library) of the UFC which type of cell is
expected in the integration: interval, triangle, tetrahedron...

Should we add something like this?

Perhaps something like

    enum shape {interval, triangle, tetrahedron, others?};

    virtual shape cell_shape() const = 0;

/Anders