> On Nov 11, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > > 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.
Nonsense, nonsense and more nonsense. Next has just proven to be a big pain (especially for Satish) with a micro amount of proven usefulness. > >> 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. What are all the implications that won't make it practical, itemize? Our current model where shit sits in next for weeks and Satish spends hours a day unwinding next-tmp crap is unacceptably bad and unfixable so resistance to trying something new strikes me as irrational.