On 26 October 2015 at 01:44, Barry Smith wrote:
> Maybe someday git will have additional features that allow multiple repos to
> share things like branches, commits, other stuff? so that having all these
> packages in different repos is possible, but for now it appears
On 23 October 2015 at 06:30, Barry Smith wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
>>
>> As I said - depending on the precondition for how tightly petsc &
>> petsc4py should be synced - we can choose the appropriate model.
>>
>> [for the
Maybe someday git will have additional features that allow multiple repos to
share things like branches, commits, other stuff? so that having all these
packages in different repos is possible, but for now it appears having one repo
is just so much dang more convenient.
> On Oct 25, 2015,
Lisandro,
You never responded to this. I assume it was because you did not like the
idea? This is not an attempt to take control of petsc4py or to take credit away
from petsc4py from you. Petsc4py is your package and you will always be the one
who deserves the credit.
The problem
Lisandro,
It is tested nightly but there is apparently currently no email sent on
failure. See the bottom of, for example,
http://ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/petsc/nightlylogs/archive/2015/10/22/make_next_arch-linux-pkgs-opt_crank.log
I think what should happen is the petsc4py log file should
On 22 October 2015 at 23:20, Barry Smith wrote:
>
>Lisandro,
>
> You never responded to this. I assume it was because you did not like the
> idea? This is not an attempt to take control of petsc4py or to take credit
> away from petsc4py from you. Petsc4py is your
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
>
> The current infrastruture tests --download-petsc4py in petsc 'next'
> and 'master' branches.
>
> Wrt next - usually a change in a feature branch (when it gets merged
> to next) triggers this breakage. And usual thing to
The model we adopt also depends on how cutting edge petsc4py users want to be
with petsc. For example if people want to use dmplex with petsc4py then the two
packages have to move very closely in sync.
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Oct
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
>
> As I said - depending on the precondition for how tightly petsc &
> petsc4py should be synced - we can choose the appropriate model.
>
> [for the metioned precondition - I was suggestion the model].
>
> As you say -
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
> >
> > The current infrastruture tests --download-petsc4py in petsc 'next'
> > and 'master' branches.
> >
> > Wrt next - usually a change in a feature branch (when it gets merged
As I said - depending on the precondition for how tightly petsc &
petsc4py should be synced - we can choose the appropriate model.
[for the metioned precondition - I was suggestion the model].
As you say - the initilal phrasing is wrong - so the model is not
suitable.
A single repo does make it
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:53 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
>
> If dmplex with petsc4py is the primary use case [and assuming the
> usage is primarily --download-petsc4py] - we chould use the first
> model I mentioned - and that should not be too difficult.
>
> The workflow would be
If dmplex with petsc4py is the primary use case [and assuming the
usage is primarily --download-petsc4py] - we chould use the first
model I mentioned - and that should not be too difficult.
The workflow would be something like:
- Matt would do the updates in petsc/dmplex feature branch &
Lisandro,
Now that everyone is using git and knows branches well can we move PETSc4py
inside the PETSc repository as was done a couple of years ago with BuildSystem.
Now when changes/additions are made to PETSc there is a slow inefficient, often
forgotten manual process of bringing
14 matches
Mail list logo