On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > >> On 12 December 2013 18:03, Todd Munson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > The idea is to distribute TAO with PETSc and treat it like any other set >> > of PETSc solves. >> > All the TaoLog (or TaoNewLog) macros should go away in my opinion and be >> > replace with >> > the correct PETSc equivalents. >> > >> > Jason? >> > >> > Todd. >> > >> >> Not sure if you guys care about previous PETSc releases, but #define >> TaoNew[Log] would ease supporting petsc-3.4 in the next TAO release. > > There won't be a next [standalone] tao release. It will be part of > petsc-3.5. > > And I'm not sure if maintaining a separate tao_version.h makes sense. > > And there will be a minimal changing of adapting the makefiles to to > this new mode [if one needs to maintain comatibility with > both petsc-3.4+tao-2.2 and petsc-3.5/tao]. > > You can check the current state of this migration at 'balay/tao-to-petsc' > branch.
That's awesome. To confirm: I should just merge balay/tao-to-petsc into the irving/hollow branch of petsc that I'm using to track the new features I need for my simulator development? I.e., is that branch stable enough to track with repeated merges? Geoffrey
