fenics team mailing list archive

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

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013, Anders Logg wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:57:12AM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > On 26 February 2013 10:07, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 26 February 2013 01:16, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:13:44AM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > >
> > >> - I think the two-way split (keeping dolfin separate, joining at least
> > > >> ufc-ffc-ufl) sounds most compelling and carries less risk.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Even more granular would be ufc-ffc. That way, FFC would contain all
> > > the code formatting.
> > >
> > > > I'm still tempted by having one big repo.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm inclined to stay close to the status quo. If a big repo is
> > > contemplated, someone should make one and we can test if it's workable
> > > with bzr. It may just be too big and bzr too slow.
> >
> >
> > The best way to do such things is usually gradually. The first steps
> could
> > be:
> > 1) Move ufc into the ffc repo.
> > 2) Move dolfin wrapper generation back from dolfin to ffc?
> > In these cases there are no big history and patching issues,
> > so this can be done soon with no issues whatsoever (but
> > preferably after we merge the work in progress by Anders and I).
>
> Sounds like a good start. Any objections to this?


No.


>
> Does this need we need to use CMake for FFC?


I do like the simplicity of the Python install for FFC over CMake.

Garth




>
> --
> Anders
>


-- 
Garth N. Wells
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~gnw20