:
http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120511/575ed517/attachment.html
at cray.com
==
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120511/8258fb35/attachment.html
Ok, in order to get the release out the door, please do not push
development work to petsc-dev. Only push fixes and removal of dead code (DMMG
for example). Also please run extensive tests and check the nightly builds.
You can continue to do development; just continue to PULL into
://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120511/2ef5ba94/attachment.html
On May 11, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
Ok, in order to get the release out the door, please do not push
development work to petsc-dev. Only push fixes and removal of dead code (DMMG
for example).
/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120511/bfa54ef0/attachment.html
? ?You can continue to do development; just continue to PULL into your
development repository but don't PUSH to the master. To apply fixes to
petsc-dev use another repository or one of the cool guys (Sean, Jed, and
Matt's) way of only pushing up some changes.
I use phases (introduced in
? All the fixes that go in the release repo also need to go into the
development repo, I don't want to have any chance of ?the release repo
becoming a branch; I want it to only be an earlier version of the development
repo.
Right ... which is why there is a freeze on the dev repo. Making a
On May 11, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
It'll necessarily be a branch after release.
Yes, but as little of a branch as possible.
I thought we have branched at or near feature freeze in the past.
I don't feel we are stable enough yet to make that branch. There is lots of
shit
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Barry Smith wrote:
On May 11, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
It'll necessarily be a branch after release.
Yes, but as little of a branch as possible.
I thought we have branched at or near feature freeze in the past.
I don't feel we are stable
On May 11, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Barry Smith wrote:
On May 11, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
It'll necessarily be a branch after release.
Yes, but as little of a branch as possible.
I thought we have branched at or near feature freeze
if the
matrix would be parallel.
--
Stefano
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120511/3b5bf939/attachment.html
in both cases of options B if
the matrix would be parallel.
--
Stefano
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120511/d2d3d388/attachment.html
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
Oh, yes we all do need that push!
Yes, apparently so:
http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/5dbfbb5affa5
Hong, this is exactly what a code freeze is supposed to prevent (new
features, instability, etc), and
Please run make alltests before pushing changes!
Who ever pushed this broken code please fix.
runex43_3:
-@${MPIEXEC} -n 4 ./ex43 -stokes_ksp_type gcr -stokes_ksp_gcr_restart
60 -stokes_ksp_norm_type unpreconditioned -stokes_ksp_rtol 1e-8 -c_str 3
-sinker_eta0 1.0 -sinker_eta1
Same problem with ex49, what the fuck are you guys thinking?
[2]PETSC ERROR: - Error Message
[2]PETSC ERROR: Arguments are incompatible!
[2]PETSC ERROR: Local size 315 not compatible with block size 2!
[2]PETSC ERROR:
/attachments/20120511/1bacb55a/attachment.html
part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120511/24027d5f/attachment.html
18 matches
Mail list logo
