On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Karl Rupp <rupp at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Hi Matt, > > > On 02/03/2013 11:37 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> >> +1 for Sean. I'm tired of carefully writing down the points I'm >> trying to make, carefully (re-)reading through what I've written, >> and then just to get a generic 'how does this relate to XYZ'-type of >> answer without really addressing anything I've raised. >> >> >> I find it tiring to continually make points that someone does not want >> to hear, and thus dismissed without recognizing >> that a point was made. >> > > We would like to hear/read more about why you think this is indeed a > point. Examples in this thread: > > --- > 'I don't think there is any > > evidence that it increases productivity, and quite a lot that it is rather > marginal on that score while increasing development > costs. I do not see any effect from these kind of pushes. Does that mean > my workflow is more robust, and we should force > it on everyone else?' > > *Why* do you see it? I would love to see that at least nailed down to an > example from 'practice'. > I said "I do not see" above. > --- > 'I can quantify the losses from the changed you propose, which is all I > need to do. There are no "gains" from a baseline. This is > a point I have made multiple times. Changes must be justified.' > > *Why* are there no gains? The sentence is a bold statement. If you require > us to quantify everything, you should do so with your own statements as > well. > It is the definition of the word. Gains are defined in reference to something. That something is the baseline. > --- > 'Its more work for me. Clearly you are asking me to do something I do not > currently do. A loss.' > > *Why* is it a loss? Just because it's more work for you does not mean it's > more work overall. > I am arguing from the same point of view as everyone in the discussion, meaning I like my process and and defending it. Your point is that its may be worse for me, but enough better for you that it does not matter? I would answer that if its worse for me, it could be worse for many potential developers. > Matt, it's not that we don't want to consider your points. The thing is > that we want your justifications for the bold statements you (sometimes) > make just in the same way you require us to justify or provide evidence for > our own statements. I certainly agree with your principle of 'we don't need > to change things just for the sake of changing', yet I don't want this to > become an universal dictum which makes us as inflexible as a steel beam > with respect to changes of our environment/community. > I think if you look at the history of the project, calling me "inflexible" on PETSc development habits would be wrong. Matt > Best regards, > Karli > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130203/4bd53e42/attachment-0001.html>