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

[Satish Balay]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Matthew Knepley wrote:

> >
> > BTW: Ultimlately if you want to improve current next model - everyone
> > has to do a 'make alltests DIFF=$PETSC_DIR/bin/petscdiff' for atleast
> > one build that has relavent feature options enabled - before merging
> > the feature branch to next.
> >

> This does not agree with my experience (I think) for bug finding. It
> tends to be other architectures (complex, 64-bit int, fortran) that
> fail for me, which means running that for many builds, and my laptop
> is just not capable, and furthermore that is why we have a farm of
> machines.

Your laptop is just an excuse. You can do it on cg.mcs or other
machines. Infact you can run one of the complex or 64-bit tests
manually on cg.

My point here is - there are quiet a few issues 'make alltests' would
have found before merge to next [and should be fixed.]

Sure 'next' testing with all the variations do find other various
issues.

Skipping the first step - and using next for that basic testing just
breaks it more - and things stay broken longer [and takes everyone
elses time to figure out what broke next].

And everyone thinks someone else broken next - and its stays broken
for weeks..

Satish