On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Dmitry Karpeyev wrote: > > > Is there any reason 'master' has PETSC_VERSION equal to the latest patch > > release version, > > rather than the first upcoming release version? > > All changes to petscversion.h in maint get merged to master. > Yes, I see the problem. I don't necessarily have a (good) solution, short of creating a separate branch for each patch release (e.g., maint-3.4.3). Those could be ahead of maint by a single commit such as those that are currently used to increment the patch level. > > And 'PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE' 0 vs 1 is supporsed to identify petsc-dev. > > > Surely, the use of PETSC_VERSION_LT() makes it relatively easy to guard > > against API changes in derived software, but it's a bit odd to see > > #if PETSC_VERSION_LT(3,5,0) > > /* Works for petsc-3.4.x and earlier. */ > > #else > > /* Supposed to work petsc-3.4.x as long as !PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE */ > > It should be 'latest petsc master' here. 3.4.x doesn't have any meaning > here.. > Yes, but master today has version number 3.4.3. In some code that depends on PETSc (e.g., libMesh) I have to use guards like these: #if PETSC_VERSION_LESS_THAN(3,5,0) && PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE /* releases petsc-3.4.x and earlier. */ #else /* master */ #endif Note that I can't always use the more succinct PETSC_VERSION_LT(), since it doesn't exist before something like petsc-3.3. I could guard for pesc-3.3 and then use the shorter macro inside, but that defeats the purpose. Meanwhile, these additional PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE clauses look odd. They could be removed after petsc-3.5 has been released, but that's another maintenance headache... Dmitry. > > Satish > > > #endif > > > > Besides, master's "version" changes with every patch release. > > It might not be of much practical importance, but looks a bit strange, in > > my opinion. > > At least intuitively, I think of 'master' as a sort of 'release > candidate' > > for petsc-3.5.0. > > Wouldn't it be natural to name it that way? Is there a technical reason > > not to? > > > > Dmitry. > > > >
