<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 15:36, Barry Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bsmith@mcs.anl.gov">bsmith@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div id=":1ld"> I think it is best if the TS example be cleaned up to do everything the SNES example did and not have both around. People will stumble upon the SNES one and use it as a template for their work when they should use the TS one.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay, I'll document the options to reproduce the paper's results.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div id=":1ld"><div class="im">
<br>
</div> I would like the TS pseudo time-stepping stuff to actually be a SNES solver. That is SNESType SNESPSEUDOTS or something and not be part of TS. This is controversial hence nothing has been done to make it this way. Some people may argue it is the wrong approach.<br>
</div></blockquote></div><br><div>Well, the way in which the transient term is added is really quite important. Especially since Ptc often uses some sort of local time stepping, I don't see a good way to produce that without creating the TS interface. Since the interface is TS, I think it belongs there.</div>