I agree with Matt on this issue. 'petsc-dev' means 'dev', that a developer should be able to push on-going work after he/she does local tests and is willing to fix the warning/bug as soon as the problems appear. Personally, I am unable to write a bug/waring free code, not matter how much effort and time to put into it.
Hong On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Karl Rupp <rupp at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Hi guys, > > >> They issue warnings and the code can't possibly execute correctly. >> >> Just don't push it (or push it somewhere else) until it's been >> cleaned up to the point where it's not wasting our time to review. >> >> >> I would love it if people never pushed code with any bugs. This is >> possible, just not efficient. All changes to >> workflow should be evaluated on this basis. For this particular change, >> >> 1) It does not break the build >> >> 2) Its a new feature, so does not break tests except the ones its >> supposed to >> >> I do think warnings are annoying and people should endeavor to push code >> with no >> warnings, but making this a requirement takes away flexibility while >> providing nothing >> I can see except lack of Jed Annoyance. The claim that you are code >> reviewing this >> push is false on its face. > > > I support Jed's point at this place. Staying 'close to stability' has the > additional benefit of finding bugs earlier and being able to go for shorter > release cycles. Jed only requests a higher discipline when committing code. > It usually takes a fraction of the time to fix warnings immediately rather > than keeping them around. > > > >> Related: I would like to start tweaking our workflow to make >> petsc-dev more consistently stable, so that more applications can >> work with it instead of needing to wait for a release. Having people >> pushing code that doesn't work, isn't tested, and obviously wouldn't >> pass review is not good for stability. > > > That's why I want to tackle improved test system output. Once we get used to > an 'all green' test report in the morning, motivation for keeping this state > goes up. Also, I think that it improves the discipline in adding tests for > things not yet covered by the test system. That may sound naive, but it is > my personal experience with other software. > > Best regards, > Karli > >
