What I mean is: what if you guys could have the things you like... and we
could also have a sane, clean system that doesn't require all the BS we
currently have to deal with when modifying libMesh?
It is definitely possible.
Or: like I said earlier, maybe we just maintain two systems. PETSc has had
several different build systems all at the same time because developers
wanted different things. It definitely could be true that a really simple
pure Make system for everyone that doesn't need the fancy features of
Automake and then Automake for Roy and Paul might be the way to go.
Derek
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:44 PM Derek Gaston <fried...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both of you claim to use these features - fine - I believe that you do...
> but how many others?
>
> However, it's obvious that you're both passionate about these... so I will
> relent and agree that whatever build system we come up with has to have
> these features. Fine.
>
> Can you agree with me that the current build system adds friction for
> everyone that doesn't use these features? I think you guys are so used to
> how slow and laborious it is that you don't even realize how much better it
> could be.
>
> This happened the other day with John and I: I was complaining about how
> slow "make install" is for libMesh. John said "what do you mean, seems
> fine to me"... after a bit of chatting it was clear that he was just so
> used to it that it didn't phase him (he just types "make install" and let's
> it do its thing)... but that doesn't mean that the inefficiency doesn't
> exist!
>
> Derek
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:15 PM Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Derek Gaston wrote:
>>
>> > I would rather fix the core development cycle - then backfill features
>> based on priority (install > check > dist > out-of-tree, etc.)
>>
>> out-of-tree > install > check > dist.
>>
>> > completely chucked a sane development flow for the sake of a few
>> features that are rarely actually used.
>>
>> By "rarely" do you mean "literally all the time, for years,
>> indispensibly"? Being able to easily build multiple configurations of
>> the same working tree is incredibly useful. The inability to do this
>> as easily with MOOSE has cost in man-hours of both workarounds (when I
>> maintain multiple trees to test different software stacks) and errors
>> (when I don't have room to do so or time to go back-and-forth and one
>> configuration or stack regresses).
>> ---
>> Roy
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
