[petsc-dev] I hate nagupgrade

[Karl Rupp]

Hi,

>         There is a difference between a library and an end-user application.
>         Having "updaters" for end-user applications seems to be the
>         status quo
>         on Windows and to a lesser extent on Macs, but is resented on Linux.
>         Having a library do these checks is not okay anywhere.
>
>
>     I remember a session at the Google Summer of Code where some guy
>     from one of the open source wikis shared his experiences with having
>     embedded a 'counter pixel' in a release. In short, his lesson
>     learned was that any kind of "phoning home" is an absolute no-go
>     unless made *very* clear to the users (plus opt-out). This was
>     pre-Snowden, so many people are now much more sensible with respect
>     to these matters...
>
>
> I am all for a configure opt-out, and noting it in every piece of
> documentation. My impression of the level
> of sophistication of most users is that we will see few opt-outs.

I bet that some Germans would still be very upset about an opt-out 
rather than an opt-in (yes, this is a cultural issue...).

Is there much value from a nagupgrade check at configure-time? Those who 
download a fresh copy of PETSc don't have any benefit from the check. 
After the installation, the check has no effect (Matt, I remember your 
fieldsplit slides where you say that students only install at the 
beginning of your PhD, then work entirely with options). For those who 
configure frequently, a regular update is part of the work flow anyway. 
So, who really benefits from nagupgrade?

Best regards,
Karli