[petsc-users] Release canditate?

[Satish Balay]

We do autmoatically generate tarballs everynight - its avaliable at:
http://ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/petsc/petsc-master.tar.gz [but we don't
maintain snapshots - i.e old tarballs for this]

However adding in 'release' strings is a manual process - so we do
this at the release time. [so we would have to do this stuff for rc]

Here is a counter argument against this proposal. For folks interested
in RC - could consider [for eg] 3.6.0 as RC - and test it out - and
have all the issues discovered by 3.6.1. But this usually doesn't
hapeen [and we have 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4 etc..]

Also testing against master would catch issues early on - and not wait
until the rc/release..

Satish

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Éric Chamberland wrote:

> 
> 
> Le 2015-12-11 23:22, Barry Smith a écrit :
> >    Eric,
> >
> >     Would it be possible for the release candidates to be a git repository
> >     branch or does it have to be a tarball? Generating and regenerating the
> for sure, if you want a maximum of RC testers, I think it should be a
> tarball...  In my book, a RC is eventually the final release so everything
> must be the same...
> > tarball is a time consuming process which is why we don't use release
> > candidates, but if you are able to test off the git repository we could
> ok, but hmmm, why isn't it possible to automate the making of the tarball?
> 
> > certainly "pre announce" releases and allow testing before the actual
> > release.
> If tarballs are impossible, I would certainly take the time to test a
> pre-announce release..
> 
> btw, the petsc-announce mailing list is somewhat silent...
> 
> Thanks anyway to have evaluated the idea! :)
> 
> Eric
> 
> >
> >    Barry
> >
> > > On Dec 11, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Éric Chamberland
> > > <Eric.Chamberland at giref.ulaval.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we just waited since petsc 3.5.4 until 3.6.3 to retrieve a working petsc
> > > for our usages (got bugs with 3.6.1, 3.6.2)
> > >
> > > Now, just discovered 3.6.3 have a bug with mkl_pardiso... :/
> > >
> > > We will have to wait until 3.6.4 (or patch the source with 3f7bb31...
> > >
> > > I was thinking that it could have been otherwise if release candidate
> > > packages would have been made available for anyone to test...
> > > and to give you feedback... and then a better official release...
> > >
> > > We can easily install it here and use the RC with our non-regression
> > > tests.
> > >
> > > Maybe other users would be interested, like me, to test the release
> > > candidates?
> > >
> > > Does that sounds interesting to you?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> 
>