On Friday 13 February 2009 12:47:18 Garth N. Wells wrote: > Johan Hake wrote: > > On Friday 13 February 2009 12:27:57 Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> It would be nice to make a new DOLFIN release in the next few days. Are > >> there any pressing issues that need to be addressed before releasing > >> 0.9.1? > >> > >> Also, are new releases of other packages (FFC/Instant/Viper) required > >> for compatibility? > > > > For PyDOLFIN, yes. > > > > Then we need new releases of at least Instant, FFC and UFC. > > OK. > > > Not sure what to do with UFC, though, as the versions of UFC, for now has > > been correlated with the state of the ufc.h file. This has (has it?) not > > been changed since 1.1. However UFC now comes with a python extension > > module, ufc.py which both FFC and PyDOLFIN needs. > > Perhaps we need a distinction between the file ufc.h and the the package > UFC. What if version numbers 1.x.y are used, where x indicates the ufc.h > version and changes in y are then related to the UFC 'package' > (supporting tools).
Sounds reasonable. If we also include the UFC version in the signature string of the JIT compiled forms this will make even more sense, as discussed previously. Johan _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
