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 <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > On 26 February 2013 01:16, Anders Logg <[email protected] <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
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
