Proposal: use upstream UFL instead of our fork#4344
Merged
Conversation
connorjward
commented
Jun 12, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
Pushing through as this was passing tests (before merging to FIAT |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I don't think that we should be using our own fork of UFL any more. It means that we have to keep updating it periodically and it doesn't affect the user experience anyway since Firedrake
releasedepends on a released version of UFL. We already point Firedrakemasterto PETScmainwhich is a much faster moving target than UFLmain.Goes with firedrakeproject/fiat#147