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

[Smith, Barry F.]

> On Nov 11, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
> 
> "Smith, Barry F." <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> 
>>   You are arguing against a change in the abstract because you love
>>   next! You are making up stray men and attacking them. Wait until
>>   there is a real proposal then point out flaws and make suggestions
>>   on how to improve it. There is no reason to develop the new model
>>   until we have the test harness done so the new model would have any
>>   hope of working.
> 
> I'm hearing "when we get rid of 'next'" as though it's a foregone
> conclusion.

   It is 

>  I think 'next' provides value,

  I don't, it is a misguided model, not appropriate for PETSc.


> but if a testing system is
> shown to keep 'next' clean without undue burden on developers, I don't
> have a problem removing it.  I think doing that is hard.

   We certainly cannot get rid of next if it results in a broken master.

> 
>>   Regardless of what next/.../... model you want we all benefit
>>   greatly from a much faster testing. Surely you cannot be opposed to
>>   that.
> 
> Yes, let's revisit this thread AFTER the testing system is working.