> On Nov 11, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Smith, Barry F." <[email protected]> writes: > >>> On Nov 11, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>>> Alternative is to delete/recreate next - if needed. [but it requires >>>>> all next users to do this delete/recreation] >>>>> >>>>> In the long term - Barry wants to get rid of next.. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) I think next really prevents master from getting screwed up (witness >>>> next) >>> >>> Agree. Next provides lots of value to PETSc, both raising the quality >>> of 'master' and enabling testing of interactions and easy access to >>> bleeding edge features. >> >> Nonsense, nonsense and more nonsense. Next has just proven to be a big pain >> (especially for Satish) with a micro amount of proven usefulness. > > Removing next without a reliable substitute that ensures quality control > would be a disaster for the stability of 'master', and thus for everyone > trying to develop new features. That's what we had before switching to > Git and it was a mess.
Did I say we were removing next before having a reliable substitute? > >>> >>>> 2) I think we are actually finding interaction bugs there. >>>> >>>> Are those points wrong, or is there another way to do these things? >>> >>> Make infallible tests that run synchronously on every merge candidate. >>> It sounds nice in theory until you work out all the implications and >>> then just doesn't look practical. >> >> What are all the implications that won't make it practical, itemize? >> >> Our current model where shit sits in next for weeks and Satish >> spends hours a day unwinding next-tmp crap is unacceptably bad > > Yes, so let's fix it by ensuring that whatever tests need to happen > before merging to 'next' actually happen. > >> and unfixable > > If we can't make 'next' be not constantly broken, we have no business > pushing to 'master' before 'next'. > >> so resistance to trying something new strikes me as irrational. > > It isn't enough to be different.
