> On Dec 11, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Éric Chamberland > <eric.chamberl...@giref.ulaval.ca> wrote: > > > > Le 2015-12-11 23:22, Barry Smith a écrit : >> Eric, >> >> Would it be possible for the release candidates to be a git repository >> branch or does it have to be a tarball? Generating and regenerating the > for sure, if you want a maximum of RC testers, I think it should be a > tarball... In my book, a RC is eventually the final release so everything > must be the same... >> tarball is a time consuming process which is why we don't use release >> candidates, but if you are able to test off the git repository we could > ok, but hmmm, why isn't it possible to automate the making of the tarball? > >> certainly "pre announce" releases and allow testing before the actual >> release. > If tarballs are impossible, I would certainly take the time to test a > pre-announce release.
Ok, we'll try to make rc tarballs and announce them on petsc-announce before the real release. Thanks for the suggestion. > > btw, the petsc-announce mailing list is somewhat silent... We try to use it only for releases. Barry > > Thanks anyway to have evaluated the idea! :) > > Eric > >> >> Barry >> >>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Éric Chamberland >>> <eric.chamberl...@giref.ulaval.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> we just waited since petsc 3.5.4 until 3.6.3 to retrieve a working petsc >>> for our usages (got bugs with 3.6.1, 3.6.2) >>> >>> Now, just discovered 3.6.3 have a bug with mkl_pardiso... :/ >>> >>> We will have to wait until 3.6.4 (or patch the source with 3f7bb31... >>> >>> I was thinking that it could have been otherwise if release candidate >>> packages would have been made available for anyone to test... >>> and to give you feedback... and then a better official release... >>> >>> We can easily install it here and use the RC with our non-regression tests. >>> >>> Maybe other users would be interested, like me, to test the release >>> candidates? >>> >>> Does that sounds interesting to you? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Eric >>> >