Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> writes: >> Alternative is to delete/recreate next - if needed. [but it requires >> all next users to do this delete/recreation] >> >> In the long term - Barry wants to get rid of next.. > > > 1) I think next really prevents master from getting screwed up (witness > next)
Agree. Next provides lots of value to PETSc, both raising the quality of 'master' and enabling testing of interactions and easy access to bleeding edge features. > 2) I think we are actually finding interaction bugs there. > > Are those points wrong, or is there another way to do these things? Make infallible tests that run synchronously on every merge candidate. It sounds nice in theory until you work out all the implications and then just doesn't look practical.
