On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Geoffrey Irving wrote: > 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?
Hm - it might go through a couple of rebases before getting merged in - so I won't say its ready for merge into other branches [unless you can deal with unmerging/merging rebased branches.] Satish
