On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Dmitry Karpeyev wrote: > 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.
As mentioned 3.4.3 has no baring on master. only PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE==0 is relavent. > 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 I don't see a problem here [except for the extra '&& PETSC_VERSION_RELEASE' which shouldn't be needed. > Note that I can't always use the more succinct PETSC_VERSION_LT(), > since it doesn't exist before something like petsc-3.3. Presumably PETSC_VERSION_LESS_THAN() is the macro you created. Why not just copy over PETSC_VERSION_LT() exactly as-is [with dependent macros] - and call it PETSC_VERSION_LESS_THAN() [or equivalent name] - if you need to maintain compatibility for petsc-3.2 or older. > 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. I don't understand which part looks odd - and how adding a version numer to petsc-master helps here. Satish > 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. > > > > > > > >
