On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Geoffrey Irving wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> 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? > > In order for me to use tao-to-petsc I need it to be compatible with > master, so I fix it for the PetscNew changes. The updated branch is > > irving/tao-to-petsc > > Hopefully that can be merged into your tao-to-petsc branch.
I should probably rebase balay/tao-to-petsc over current master - and then cherrypick this patch - and push it down the stack - into the compile-fixes set of patches on this tree. Satish
