[petsc-dev] broken nightlybuilds (next vs next-tmp)

[Richard Tran Mills]

Hi Satish,

Thanks for taking the initiative to switch to testing next-tmp to help
clear up the constipation with moving things into master. It looks like
there hasn't been any graduation of the branches you've been putting into
next-tmp in a few days, though. Is this just because you haven't had time
to do any more of these merges, or are the tests breaking with next-tmp now?

If I go to the dashboard at
http://ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/petsc/nightlylogs/archive/2017/11/10/next.html,
is this showing me the info for 'next' or 'next-tmp'? If it is showing me
'next', how do I find the results for 'next-tmp'?

If we think a branch may be ready for 'master', should we still be merging
to 'next', given it's current broken state?

Lastly, a question for everyone: If someone knows that they have merged
something into 'next' that has broken the builds or tests, and it is going
to be a while before this is fixed, should they revert that changeset in
'next'? I see some reverts in the 'next' logs, but not that many. Maybe
this is because it's not always easy to tell if one's particular changeset
broke things when there are all these other changes being merged.

--Richard

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Balay, Satish <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> I think so.
>
> Also do 'make alltests DIFF=$PETSC_DIR/bin/petscdiff' [esp with
> feature changes that are likely to break things] and fix regressions -
> before a PR or a merge to next.
>
> But I don't think most of us are doing this..
>
> Satish
>
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Patrick Sanan wrote:
>
> > Should this be considered standard practice for all contributors?
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Satish Balay wrote:
> > >
> > > > >   origin/jed/fix-stdout-attr-delete
> > > > >   origin/jed/pastix-comm
> > > > >   origin/mark/fix-mat
> > > >
> > > > These are now merged to master.
> > >
> > > Jed, Mark,
> > >
> > > The above branches  appear to have started from maint. Are they
> destined
> > > to maint?
> > >
> > > If so it would be good to make it more obvious with a '/maint' suffix
> in
> > > the branch name.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Satish
> > >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20171110/0b4fa864/attachment.html>