[petsc-dev] moab nightlybuild failure

Jed Brown jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov
Fri Jun 28 18:06:22 CDT 2013

Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

>    Not at all!  It is EXACTLY the workflow we expect to see as PETSc
>    and MOAB become best buds. Someone branches off of PETSc master and
>    moab master and make related changes to __both__ of those branches
>    over time (likely a small team of people is working on these
>    branches or branches of these branches). For example making another
>    PETSc hook into moab that requires some additions to the moab base
>    code as well as additional PETSc code*. When they are all done the
>    two branches are eventually (and at the same time) merged into
>    PETSc master and moab master for everyone to benefit from.

I think that if we ever have "PETSc example as a test suite
for a new feature in MOAB", it will be temporary and not necessary to

>    Now I originally proposed doing this by simply requiring these
>    people (who are presumably somewhat competent) to simply manually
>    make sure the branches in the two packages match up appropriately
>    (with perhaps a naming convention) as they do other stuff and
>    checkout other branches then go back to work on their combined
>    PETSc moab project they manually make sure the appropriate branch
>    is set for each package.

I think this is reasonable, and I think the PETSc branch should not
merge to 'master' until the corresponding branch in MOAB has merged to
master, so that we can point moab.py's gitcommit at it.

>   Jed implied that the manual matches of branches I proposed could be
>   handled somewhat automatically (mumbling about gitcommit; I didn't
>   understand what you proposed). My response is that __IF__ it can be
>   handled somewhat automatically then it should be handled properly
>   automatically; hence I asked if it could be handled completely
>   generally automatically (checking out matching partners
>   automatically) and your response was it is nebulous, complicated and
>   unnecessary. 

I think automating it is too hard, not because of the data model or
interface, but because making the decision about what is correct
behavior is so subjective and involves non-local information.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130628/2fd6babe/attachment.sig>

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list