On 02/03/2013 11:25 AM, Sean Farley wrote: > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> Do share. >> >> >> Its more work for me. Clearly you are asking me to do something I do not >> currently do. A loss. >> >>>> >>>> There are no "gains" from a baseline. This is >>>> a point I have made multiple times. Changes must be justified. >>> >>> >>> I provided a long list of justifications that you have not responded to. >>> There is a great deal of empirical evidence to back my claims. >> >> >> I have responded to each and every point carefully. You need to listen. > > I have been following this conversation closely but have not seen you > respond to any of the points on code review, new bugs, etc. I have > seen you complain that you don't want to change your habits, though.
+1 for Sean. I'm tired of carefully writing down the points I'm trying to make, carefully (re-)reading through what I've written, and then just to get a generic 'how does this relate to XYZ'-type of answer without really addressing anything I've raised. Best regards, Karli
