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

[Jed Brown]

"Smith, Barry F." <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

>   Jed wrote (with my ())
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only one in a similar situation.  We need an
> effective set of tests that runs in less than five minutes (on all systems with all compilers) so that we
> can fix problems and move on rather than having lots of open threads
> hanging around.
>
>   Sure, this would be great. But having this is not orthogonal to getting rid of next.
>
>   I don't have fully formed in my head the best way to organize the
>   "branch gets fully tested then applied to master" model. 

Okay, then let's stop speculating in this thread until we have a testing
system capable of keeping 'next' clean.

>   It will need a small system perhaps to manage a queue and decisions
>   on that queue. But please don't make up your own model and then
>   point out flaws in it. Instead try to think of a model that would
>   not have flaws but would still be efficient etc.

I was responding to Satish's suggestions/paraphrasing.

To avoid wasting more time that could be better spent, let's end this
thread until the test system works.  We all agree that it is necessary.

Once the testing system is successful at protecting 'next', we can
discuss next steps, including removing 'next' from our workflow.  But
let's stop speculating until the damn test suite works.