On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Barry Smith wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:46 PM, "Timothy J. Tautges" <taut...@mcs.anl.gov> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I've been mulling whether by default petsc should point to a release > >>> tarball anyway, I think it should (4.6 being the latest). > >> > >> PETSc releases should point to moab releases. But PETSc-dev should point > >> to moab-dev > > > > This kind of switch adds extra complexity - > > Come on, it cannot be that hard.
Yes most complexity is manageable at [at some cost and tradeoffs]. Its a matter of whats required. For ex: If tracking moab-dev is required - one simplification is to use the nightly tarballs [as before] - not the git repo. Other simplification is to only use git and not tarballs. Satish . > > > and not needed unless moab > > and petsc codes are intertwined and released simultaneously. > > > > Do we really need to track moab-dev? > > Yes, petsc-dev must track moab-dev! > > In the same way that slepc-dev needs to track petsc-dev > > Barry > > > > > > > Also the git stuff [instead of just tarballs is adding extra > > complexity [which is also breaking some current functionality - like > > --download-package=url] > > > > Its not clear to me if we really need to track the git repos of > > external packages. > > > > Satish > >
