We do autmoatically generate tarballs everynight - its avaliable at: http://ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/petsc/petsc-master.tar.gz [but we don't maintain snapshots - i.e old tarballs for this]
However adding in 'release' strings is a manual process - so we do this at the release time. [so we would have to do this stuff for rc] Here is a counter argument against this proposal. For folks interested in RC - could consider [for eg] 3.6.0 as RC - and test it out - and have all the issues discovered by 3.6.1. But this usually doesn't hapeen [and we have 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4 etc..] Also testing against master would catch issues early on - and not wait until the rc/release.. Satish On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Éric Chamberland 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.. > > btw, the petsc-announce mailing list is somewhat silent... > > 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 > > > > >
