On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote: > >> I did address. It would be great if people never pushed warnings. I try >> not to. >> > > You push new warnings almost every day. > Hyperbole does not serve rational argument. > > >> >> >>> 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. >> > > How do you identify what the feature is when it's in 10 commits > interspersed over 200 in the history. My claim is that you should make > those 10 commits on top of each other without merging (unless you need > something specific that was pushed to petsc-dev) and merge when it's > complete. Pushing to petsc-dev should _mean_ that it's ready for review. > This does not take more work. > Again, hyperbole is not useful. This is a single commit, where I add functionality to a few functions for a single purpose. Are you even reading this before commenting? 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/20130203/73ac20c5/attachment.html>
