On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> It is not the current workflow that must be justified, but a mandatory >> change in that workflow. I don't think there is any >> evidence that it increases productivity, and quite a lot that it is >> rather marginal on that score while increasing development >> costs. I do not see any effect from these kind of pushes. >> > > Or you see a positive effect because we fix your bugs. ;-D > > Coherent development improves incremental readability, which encourages > code review and comprehension of bugs (questions like when was it > introduced and what is affected). Code review improves up-front quality, > but also maintainability. > > >> Code management is not just about doing what seems most logical and >> efficient to you, but imposing as little >> as possible on the developers and honestly evaluating the gains/losses to >> productivity of changes. >> > > Can you quantify your productivity gains that come from pushing > checkpoints instead of waiting for a semantically meaningful point to merge > and push? > I can quantify the losses from the changed you propose, which is all I need to do. There are no "gains" from a baseline. This is a point I have made multiple times. Changes must be justified. Matt -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130203/93919a2b/attachment.html>
