On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Satish Balay wrote: > 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.
Actually even these simplifications have caveats. If proper tracking is need - the we would have to do sub-repos [which we hated so much]. Satish > > 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 > > > > > >
