dolfin team mailing list archive

["Johan Hoffman" <jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Johan Jansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:11:26AM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > I don't understand this. If you want to develop against the
>> development
>> > version of DOLFIN, then get dolfin-dev.
>> >
>> > If you get dolfin-fsi, you'll need to cope with both a changing kernel
>> > *and* potentially unstable module development in unrelated modules.
>>
>> The kernel will improve, but not break. If you develop against
>> dolfin-dev, then after a pull you might discover that assembly no
>> longer works (which is ok in the kernel development tip), or something
>> more subtle. This is what we want to filter out with dolfin-fsi.
>>
>>   Johan
>
> How will the kernel improve? Will the kernel in dolfin-fsi have new
> functionality not present in dolfin-dev that will be merged back into
> dolfin-dev, or will dolfin-fsi pull certain things from dolfin-dev?
> Or both?
>
> /Anders

Both, I guess? Kernel functionality that is fairly orthogonal to other
kernel work, like mesh refinement/coarsening, may be added directly in
dolfin-dev (and then pulled to dolfin-fsi), whereas other functionality
that is more tightly dependent on kernel development in flux, such as
ale-algorithms, may be better to merge back into dolfin-dev from
dolfin-fsi once the format has settled. It is a challenge to work on
module development since that is more downstream with many dependencies,
so using dolfin-fsi as a buffer-zone to dolfin-dev is very useful.

/Johan

> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>