> On Nov 11, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Smith, Barry F." <[email protected]> writes: > >> You are arguing against a change in the abstract because you love >> next! You are making up stray men and attacking them. Wait until >> there is a real proposal then point out flaws and make suggestions >> on how to improve it. There is no reason to develop the new model >> until we have the test harness done so the new model would have any >> hope of working. > > I'm hearing "when we get rid of 'next'" as though it's a foregone > conclusion.
It is > I think 'next' provides value, I don't, it is a misguided model, not appropriate for PETSc. > but if a testing system is > shown to keep 'next' clean without undue burden on developers, I don't > have a problem removing it. I think doing that is hard. We certainly cannot get rid of next if it results in a broken master. > >> Regardless of what next/.../... model you want we all benefit >> greatly from a much faster testing. Surely you cannot be opposed to >> that. > > Yes, let's revisit this thread AFTER the testing system is working.
