Subject: Re: [UFC-dev] [DOLFIN-dev] New release

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:47:18 +0000

Johan Hake wrote:
> On Friday 13 February 2009 12:27:57 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> It would be nice to make a new DOLFIN release in the next few days. Are
>> there any pressing issues that need to be addressed before releasing 0.9.1?
>>
>> Also, are new releases of other packages (FFC/Instant/Viper) required
>> for compatibility?
> 
> For PyDOLFIN, yes. 
> 
> Then we need new releases of at least Instant, FFC and UFC. 
> 

OK.

> Not sure what to do with UFC, though, as the versions of UFC, for now has been 
> correlated with the state of the ufc.h file. This has (has it?) not been 
> changed since 1.1. However UFC now comes with a python extension module, 
> ufc.py which both FFC and PyDOLFIN needs.
>

Perhaps we need a distinction between the file ufc.h and the the package 
UFC. What if version numbers 1.x.y are used, where x indicates the ufc.h 
version and changes in y are then related to the UFC 'package' 
(supporting tools).

Garth

> Johan

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:09:00 +0100

On Friday 13 February 2009 12:47:18 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Not sure what to do with UFC, though, as the versions of UFC, for now has
> > been correlated with the state of the ufc.h file. This has (has it?) not
> > been changed since 1.1. However UFC now comes with a python extension
> > module, ufc.py which both FFC and PyDOLFIN needs.
>

Sounds reasonable. 

If we also include the UFC version in the signature string of the JIT compiled 
forms this will make even more sense, as discussed previously.

Johan