Barry, Sorry for the hg goof. Here is the changeset that I think is related to the problem.
http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/7782710e3f96 Brad On 11/4/11 8:15 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Barry Smith<bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Jed Brown wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 18:27, Matthew Knepley<knepley at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I am trying to understand, but having problems. >>> >>> 1) 20985 does not change anything here. Do you mean 20989? >>> >>> Please, please, please use the SHA1. The number is meaningless since it's >>> different for everyone. I cannot forgive Mercurial for printing these >>> numbers, they cause nothing but trouble. >> >> Bug report to Mercurial folks? >> >> They also show the SHA1 at all times. > > Yes, but as Jed observes most users don't understand that the 20989 > number is meaningless while the SHA1 number is useful hence lots of time is > wasting when people send the wrong number. This has already happened > numerous times on petsc-maint and petsc-dev (I am a guilty party). > > If the door is a push door then why the hell would you put a pull handle > on it? So why list a useless number right before the useful number (that is a > sign of bad design) just skip the useless number. > > Bad designs deserve bug reports just like errors deserve bug reports. > > Barry > >> >> Matt >> >> Barry >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments >> is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments >> lead. >> -- Norbert Wiener > >
