On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote: > >> If the checkin you originally complained about the build did not fail and >> a memory leak did not appear. You >> still cannot explain what was wrong there, so you proceed to a different >> problem. >> > > Users even write petsc-maint about the warnings. You did not address that > point. > I did address. It would be great if people never pushed warnings. I try not to. > Pushing as a checkpointing mechanism discourages review. > Review should happend when the section is complete, but this is no way implies that you should not push until it is complete. > >> >>> Since we make API changes in petsc-dev, people may need to update their >>> code. For example, I updated parmod last night and had to update a few >>> things for it to build, but then -malloc_dump told me about a memory leak. >>> If I was not a PETSc developer, should I have expected it to be due to a >>> bug in my code or a new bug in PETSc? As it turns out, you introduced the >>> memory leak as part of a bunch of other stuff >>> >> >> Yes, a memory leak did appear here. However, it appeared in a complete >> checkin that had a test to go with it, >> > > Either that test did not actually run the code, or you didn't have > -malloc_dump in the test. (It should _always_ be used when testing.) > Malloc dump was not on. It should be turned on in all tests automatically. > exactly as you ask. We see that even that is insufficient sometimes to >> discover a minor bug like this. So your >> second example is really about the shortcomings of the strategy you >> propose. >> > > Your patch did several things. It would have been easier to spot (though > not necessarily noticed) if the patch had been split apart. > It was a uniform change of a single functionality. It would be harder to understand broken up. 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/d55afeaa/attachment.html>
