> > > > If everyone is using ~/.petscrc then I can suck it up but if nobody is > then this is a red hearing and we should just do it. > > You are avoiding the question. If we get rid of .petscrc how can we > possible not get rid of PETSC_OPTIONS since it has the exact same possible > problems (and we have plenty of previous experience with outdated > environmental variables)
Barry, I have answered this question. Let me try to spell this out explicitly. 1) Does anyone need ~.petscrc other than Satish? If not then kill. (Satish, or another expert user, is a big boy and he can take care of himself. eg, he can use PETSC_OPTIONS.) 2) If so then is PETSC_OPTIONS the only/best alternative? 3) If so, then what is cost of moving users to it? (Data on number of users needed, so far 0/2) 4) Given the cost of the number of users to switch and our cost factor for switching users (ie, epsilon), is it a better solution long term? 5) I think it is: again, the problems that I have seen over the years is *not* someone forgetting that they *intentionally* once put a .petscrc file in their home directory but that the use their home directory as a scratch space and have a .petscrc file there by accident. .bashrc files at least have to be explicitly edited an are not used as a scratch pad. Home directories are use as a scratch pad by many users. At this point is is not clear that we even need to get past (1). Mark
