Subject: [Ufl] Release

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:32:03 +0000

It would be good to make a release of DOLFIN/FFL/UFL next week with the
new syntax for Constants and Expressions. Are there any pressing issues
which need to be addressed before making a new release?

Garth

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:18:45 +0100

> which need to be addressed before making a new release?

I agree. Let's make a release as soon as possible.

The only things I see missing are

1. std::vector argument in eval. I see you've started on this.

2. Getting the buildbot running in on form or another.

Andre Massing has prepared a major bundle on the CGAL stuff but that
can wait until after 0.9.5, but it would be good to do it immediately
after so we get that done.

--
Anders

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:21:18 +0000

> 2. Getting the buildbot running in on form or another.

If we don't get this running in time, I'm happy if we run the tests by
hand on a few OSes.

> after so we get that done.

Perhaps he could publish it first as a personal branch on Launchpad?

Garth

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:23:58 +0100

> If we don't get this running in time, I'm happy if we run the tests by

Me too.

> Perhaps he could publish it first as a personal branch on Launchpad?

Yes, it would be a good opportunity to test that feature.

What do you think Andre? Could you give it a try?

--
Anders

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:26:07 +0100

> What do you think Andre? Could you give it a try?

Another thing to figure out is the logic/algorithm for selecting
coefficient element degrees.

We have another thread going on this.

--
Anders

---

From: Andre Massing <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:01:18 +0100

> What do you think Andre? Could you give it a try?

Yes, sounds like a good idea to me. So far almost everything should be 
in place, although I still have some ideas in mind I would like to 
implement :) But I would like to get the CGAL stuff merged ASAP, merging 
everything via diff/patch by into the new bzr branch locally on my disk 
and not getting the my converted branch into trunk was a kind of a 
painful experience :(

And using the launchpad branch feature is a good way to get the code 
reviewed by the dolfin developers :)
I will install a branch tomorrow/today...

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:10:16 +0000

> Perhaps he could publish it first as a personal branch on Launchpad?

Does anyone know whether bzr allow for selective pulls (just specific
sections) from such branches?

Harish

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:50:23 +0100

> sections) from such branches?

I found this page:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2006q4/019026.html

There's also the bzr shelve/unshelve command that can be used to
temporarily hide changes from commits (I think).

--
Anders

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:57:32 +0000

> temporarily hide changes from commits (I think).

Sounds fancy. Will look into this.

Harish

---

From: Johannes Ring <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:03:26 +0100

>> If we don't get this running in time, I'm happy if we run the tests by

The buildbot is up again now, although with a couple of issues. It is
not yet triggered by a push to launchpad but one can force a rebuild
by pressing the 'Force Build' button on the web interface. There is
also a problem with the Windows buildslave so this slave can be
ignored until it has been fixed. I hope to fix both of these issues
tomorrow.

Currently, the buildbot fails when building the DOLFIN benchmarks.

Johannes

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:43:30 +0100

> We have another thread going on this.

Another thing that we might want to fix in the new release is the
ability to do

  return (foo, bar)

instead of

  values[0] = foo
  values[1] = bar

in the Expression class in Python.

Johan hinted that it would be possible to implement this.

On the other hand, one can argue that the simplified Expression
interface (using C++ string expressions) is already simple enough for
simple cases and that one should need to assign to values when
subclassing Expression to make it consistent with the C++ interface.

Opinions?

--
Anders