[petsc-dev] [tao-comments #191525] PetscNewLog signature change

[Satish Balay]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Geoffrey Irving wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Geoffrey Irving <irving at naml.us> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12 December 2013 18:03, Todd Munson <tmunson at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > The idea is to distribute TAO with PETSc and treat it like any other set of PETSc solves.
> >>> > All the TaoLog (or TaoNewLog) macros should go away in my opinion and be replace with
> >>> > the correct PETSc equivalents.
> >>> >
> >>> > Jason?
> >>> >
> >>> > Todd.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Not sure if you guys care about previous PETSc releases, but #define
> >>> TaoNew[Log] would ease supporting petsc-3.4 in the next TAO release.
> >>
> >> There won't be a next [standalone] tao release. It will be part of
> >> petsc-3.5.
> >>
> >> And I'm not sure if maintaining a separate tao_version.h makes sense.
> >>
> >> And there will be a minimal changing of adapting the makefiles to to
> >> this new mode [if one needs to maintain comatibility with
> >> both petsc-3.4+tao-2.2 and petsc-3.5/tao].
> >>
> >> You can check the current state of this migration at 'balay/tao-to-petsc' branch.
> >
> > That's awesome.  To confirm: I should just merge balay/tao-to-petsc
> > into the irving/hollow branch of petsc that I'm using to track the new
> > features I need for my simulator development?   I.e., is that branch
> > stable enough to track with repeated merges?
> 
> In order for me to use tao-to-petsc I need it to be compatible with
> master, so I fix it for the PetscNew changes.  The updated branch is
> 
>     irving/tao-to-petsc
> 
> Hopefully that can be merged into your tao-to-petsc branch.

I should probably rebase balay/tao-to-petsc over current master - and
then cherrypick this patch - and push it down the stack - into the
compile-fixes set of patches on this tree.

Satish