On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Mark Adams wrote: > > > > > > This has never been a problem. > > > > I suspect this is because almost no one knows about PETSC_OPTIONS and > > uses it. > > > > > This could be a migration path for people using ~/.petscrc ...
The point is - once users migrate from .petscrc to PETSC_OPTIONS [and we keep recommending PETSC_OPTIONS as we currently do with .petscrc] - they'll potentiall have the same issues with PETSC_OPTIONS that you currently raise against ~/.petscrc Satish
