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

[Smith, Barry F.]

> On Nov 11, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
> 
> "Smith, Barry F." <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Removing next without a reliable substitute that ensures quality control
> would be a disaster for the stability of 'master', and thus for everyone
> trying to develop new features.  That's what we had before switching to
> Git and it was a mess.

  Did I say we were removing next before having a reliable substitute? 

> 
>>> 
>>>> 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 
> 
> Yes, so let's fix it by ensuring that whatever tests need to happen
> before merging to 'next' actually happen.
> 
>>   and unfixable
> 
> If we can't make 'next' be not constantly broken, we have no business
> pushing to 'master' before 'next'.
> 
>>   so resistance to trying something new strikes me as irrational.
> 
> It isn't enough to be different.