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

[Smith, Barry F.]

> On Nov 11, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
> 
> Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> Alternative is to delete/recreate next - if needed. [but it requires
>>> all next users to do this delete/recreation]
>>> 
>>> In the long term - Barry wants to get rid of next..
>> 
>> 
>> 1) I think next really prevents master from getting screwed up (witness
>> next)
> 
> Agree.  Next provides lots of value to PETSc, both raising the quality
> of 'master' and enabling testing of interactions and easy access to
> bleeding edge features.

  Nonsense, nonsense and more nonsense. Next has just proven to be a big pain (especially for Satish) with a micro amount of proven usefulness.

> 
>> 2) I think we are actually finding interaction bugs there.
>> 
>> Are those points wrong, or is there another way to do these things?
> 
> Make infallible tests that run synchronously on every merge candidate.
> It sounds nice in theory until you work out all the implications and
> then just doesn't look practical.

   What are all the implications that won't make it practical, itemize? 

   Our current model where shit sits in next for weeks and Satish spends hours a day unwinding next-tmp crap is unacceptably bad and unfixable so resistance to trying something new strikes me as irrational.