Lawrence Mitchell via petsc-dev <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> writes: >> On 11 Apr 2019, at 21:02, Matthew Knepley via petsc-dev >> <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Jed, should we be doing this? My first impression is that our builds catch a >> lot of configure errors so we do not want it. > > We still configure and build firedrake in the tests. This is just for > downstream applications that test on our build hardware with master. The > containers are built on a passing master build of firedrake itself, so the > downstream tests don't have to recreate that build.
And this is certainly something PETSc can do, though we'd have to agree on some supported configuration(s). The biggest cost for PETSc is that we have so many damn configuration options.
