This is responding to Matt's comment, which is a topic that we could use more feedback on.
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/0a8e8854d85628d5034c7879b76533cb3504de85#general-comments Should the formal citations list (produced when running with -citations) include underlying mathematical work or only tangible software that is being executed? I'm hesitant to include the mathematical background, at least by default, because it is inherently non-scalable. We could perhaps have multiple levels of verbosity, one of which is basically "further reading". Even with only software, applying automated citations recursively is a scalability risk similar to the advertising clause in 4-clause BSD, though the standard for publication about software tends to self-regulate a bit, along with the relative dearth of people interested in maintaining scientific software packages. What do you think PetscCitations should be?
pgpdf4tU7RGAp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
