On 02/16/2012 11:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:05:23AM -0000, Joachim Haga wrote:
>> Are there any objections to merging this symmetric assembler? In particular, objections to the interface?
> Not from me.
Neither from me.
>> If not, I'll prepare a branch for 1.1 as well.
Not sure what you mean with this. Are you going to include it in 1.0.x
branch? Even if it is a a feature which will, not for now break any
code, it will most probably trigger some iterations on the interface,
read merging of Assemblers, which a stable interface should be spared
from. But that is my opinion.
Johan
>> Anything else (merging the different assemblers, fixing DirichletBC pointwise performance / parallel correctness, etc) can be dealt with separately later.
>
On 02/16/2012 11:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:05:23AM -0000, Joachim Haga wrote:
>> Are there any objections to merging this symmetric assembler? In particular, objections to the interface?
> Not from me.
Neither from me.
>> If not, I'll prepare a branch for 1.1 as well.
Not sure what you mean with this. Are you going to include it in 1.0.x
branch? Even if it is a a feature which will, not for now break any
code, it will most probably trigger some iterations on the interface,
read merging of Assemblers, which a stable interface should be spared
from. But that is my opinion.
Johan
>> Anything else (merging the different assemblers, fixing DirichletBC pointwise performance / parallel correctness, etc) can be dealt with separately later.
>