dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:56:29AM +0100, Johan Hoffman wrote:
> > Then I think we should also have demo, test, bench at the top and just
> > keep the library in src (removing kernel).
> 
> Could make sense.
> 
> > Is that a good idea?
> 
> I do not know.
> 
> > I would also not object putting the modules in a separate source tree,
> > but then I'd like someone to maintain the modules (anyone from KTH?)
> > with an identical release schedule as for DOLFIN and identical version
> > numbers.
> 
> Wasn't that what you did not want a month back? I thought we agreed on
> that it would not benefit DOLFIN to extract the modules. What Garth
> suggests I think is something different, less dramatic.
> 
> /Johan

Not exactly. We would move all the modules to a separate tree, and the
modules would only contain module-specific stuff (not modules + extra
functionality not found in DOLFIN). We would also have a very strict
policy that the modules are always (at each release) in sync with
DOLFIN. We would also have a separate maintainer of the modules, which
would force the maintainer of the modules to keep up with DOLFIN.

But this would require someone to maintain the modules, and there
seems to be little interest?

/Anders


> 
> >
> > /Anders
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:46:39AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >> What if we move the modules (and module demos) out of the DOLFIN source
> >> tree and have
> >>
> >>    src/ . . .
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >>    modules/solvers/ . . .
> >>    modules/demo/ . . .
> >>
> >> We can give more prominence to the modules (as we've discussed before),
> >> and encourage people to contribute modules by promoting them more as
> >> "attachements" to DOLFIN.
> >>
> >> Garth
> >>
> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:58:26PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >> >> Sounds good. "make demo" won't necessarily work if the modules
> >> haven't
> >> >> been built though.
> >> >>
> >> >> An alternative if a configure flag --enable/disable-modules.
> >> >
> >> > That will have the same effect (not being able to build module demos).
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps we could have a flag make_module_demos, but maybe we should
> >> > try to keep the number of targets down?
> >> >
> >> > /Anders
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Garth
> >> >>
> >> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> >> >>> I'm suggesting to add the following new make targets:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     make modules
> >> >>>
> >> >>> and
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     make modules_install
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As it is now, compiling the modules takes a considerable time of the
> >> >>> build process and we have quite a number of users on Simula that
> >> >>> are only interested in building the kernel.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Any objections?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> /Anders
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> >> >>> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> >> >> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> >> > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> >> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev