On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Paul Mullowney <paulm at txcorp.com> wrote:
> VecTransplantPlaceArray > > > http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/**petsc-dev/rev/d2f118b395b2<http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/d2f118b395b2> >> >> This thing is way too big to review, includes huge swaths of >> commented-out code, breaks coding conventions and portability, and >> introduces strange new APIs (like VecTransplantPlaceArray) that haven't >> really been explained and seem to produce questionable semantics. >> >> >> Why is the non-portable? It assumes C99 to begin with. > I asked for your input on this 2 days ago? Sorry, I'm at a conference, finishing a proposal, and trying to make progress on my research. I was hoping someone else would comment because I think it's leaking implementation details. Also, you didn't provide the whole patch series to comment on, just some bits of code. > > This is non-portable: >> >> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/**petsc-dev/rev/66ca8db0d5f8<http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/66ca8db0d5f8> >> >> >> Can we please institute some sort of policy on patch >> quality/reviewability? This one patch is going to take a significant amount >> of fix-up (not made easier by the several merges since) and/or generate >> several build failures and user inconvenience (petsc-maints). No doubt the >> functionality is important, but we just don't have time to fix these things >> line-by-line after they are pushed. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120628/2d388b56/attachment.html>
