dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 08:38:08AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>
>> Anders Logg wrote:
>>> What shape are we in currently for making a new release next week?
>> FFC/FIAT/UFL should have some more testing time before a release given
>> all the changes.
> 
> Yes, ideally we should have more time but we don't. We can't move the
> Debian import freeze and I think it would be good to get the latest
> release in there.
>

If it goes into Debian, we should be confident that it's all ok and not
rush it. DOLFIN 0.9.4 is in Ubuntu Lucid, so if we can get it to 0.9.5
it should be OK. Not that much has changed on the outside from 0.9.5 to
the upcoming 0.9.6 (or with the related packages).

Garth


> It all depends on whether we finish testing on time. We will have
> quite massive testing (unit and regression tests) to back up the new
> release.
> 
>>> I've been locked up in FFC/UFL for the last month so I'm not fully
>>> up to speed.
>>>
>>> One thing I'm not completely happy with is
>>>
>>>   const Array<const double>& x
>>>
>>> It would look better if we could somehow manage to have
>>>
>>>   const Array<double>& x
>>>
>>> Would that be possible to fix?
>>>
>> We can't fix it properly. We looked at it some time ago. The reason is
>> that Array does not necessarily own the data, unlike a std::vector. We
>> therefore need
>>
>>   const Array<const foo> bar
>>
>> when wrapping const pointers.
> 
> Would it help if we let data.x own its values and then copy the values
> into data.x instead of
> 
>   this->x.update(ufc_cell.geometric_dimension, x);
> 
> inside Data::set. It might be slower potentially, but I doubt it will
> matter.
> 
> It would make the interface more intuitive. As it is now, we force an
> extra const that looks strange.
> 
>>> What needs to happen before ca next Wednesday is to fix any remaining
>>> issues in DOLFIN (how many?) and FFC (quite a few) and then make new
>>> releases of
>>>
>>>   DOLFIN (0.9.6)
>>>   FFC (0.9.0)
>>>   UFL (0.5.0)
>>>   FIAT (0.4.0?)
>>>   UFC (1.2.1)
>>>
>>> Anything else?
>>>
>> There was an update to Viper recently.
> 
> You mean the LUT thing? It wouldn't hurt, but I'm not sure how
> important that is.
> 
> --
> Anders