fenics team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <hake.dev@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:07:22AM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
> 
>>> - Should we remove meshes from the repository?
>>>
>>>  My opinion is yes. The meshes have already been removed and
>>>  a working system for easily downloading the meshes is in place.
>>>  This system will encourage the use of more interesting meshes (since
>>>  they no longer need to be very small) and will encourage
>>>  contribution of meshes to the gallery on the web page.
>> Just to clarify. The meshes you are talking about are meshes not used in
>> demos, right? If so, I agree.
> 
> Not exactly:
> 
> - Meshes in demos --> remove (already done)

I suggest we keep these. There aren't any big files anyhow, are there?

> - Meshes in data/meshes --> remove (already done)
> - Meshes in unit tests --> keep
> 
>>> - Should we remove generated code from the repository?
>>>
>>>  Martin has some good arguments in favor of keeping the generated
>>>  code, but I'm not fully convinced. A compromise would be to include
>>>  all files needed to build the library itself, which essentially
>>>  means keeping the generated code in dolfin/ale.
>> I think we should keep these in the repo.
> 
> ok.
> 
>>>  But does that mean we should also keep all the old generated code
>>>  that was part of the library at some point?
>> No strong opinion.
>> All the swig code can be regenerated by dolfin provided tools so that is
>> OK to remove. However the docstring generation code is really slow, and
>> is pretty annoying to generate. But as others have mentioned. This could
>> be a cmake-cached process, which is only done once, unless the
>> CMakeCache is removed or one trigger the generation script under
>> cmake/scripts.
> 
> I think it would be good to always (when first running CMake) generate
> the docstrings since now they only generated when someone randomly
> remembers to run that script.

Ok.

Johan

> 
> --
> Anders
>