tracking petsc

[Matthew Knepley]

Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes:

> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:49:46 -0600
> Matthew Knepley <knepley at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> 
>> Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes:
>> 
>>       This was patched in 2.3.0, but maybe you have an unpatched version. It is
>> easy to check. The symbol comes from 
>
> We have been tracking your bitkeeper repository. I don't know if this is
> sane or not because we want to release something (in a few weeks)
> and that basically means it is up to us to somehow stabilize PETSc,
> or at least "bless" some particular version of PETSc.
>
> No, that doesn't sound right either: fixes that you guys make will go into
> the bk repository, so... I guess what I am asking is, are we just insane to
> try and do this ? Or, is it possible to maybe branch your repository so
> we can stabilize PETSc for some kind of beta release ?

  This is our preference. Why? It is jsut as stable as tarballs because you can
clone to any particular revision, BUT its more flexible because you can easily
pull any fixes or upgrades.

> Sounds like we just need to make it clear that petsc is on the move
> and that you guys are completely responsive to bug reports, etc.
>
> We are going to build a "petsc doesn't work" FAQ, but, gee i wish your email
> list (petsc-maint) was archived somewhere...

  The DOE really frowns on this I believe. We discuss a lot of DOE internal stuff
on it. However, it there were an archived list to Cc, we could talk about doing that.

> If you start getting 10 more support queires a day can you handle that ?
> What about 50 ? Maybe I can also act as a gateway, if I tell our users to come to
> me first.

  Well, we get anywhere from 50-200 per day, so I think we can probably handle some more. In
my experience there are a lot up front with a new community,but it rapidly tails off.

   Matt
-- 
"Failure has a thousand explanations. Success doesn't need one" -- Sir Alec Guiness