I would also add --with-clanguage=C++
2018-03-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Smith, Barry F. <[email protected]>: > > > > On Mar 1, 2018, at 8:36 AM, Patrick Sanan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Proposed addition to https://bitbucket.org/petsc/ > petsc/wiki/Home#markdown-header-contributing-to-petsc : > > > > """ > > Suggestions for a smooth review of your contributed code: > > > > - If adding features, include tests which cover them. > > - Test your changes by running with valgrind (use `--download-mpich` to > obtain a valgrind-clean MPI implementation). > > - Test your changes with non-standard configurations of PETSc (in > particular, `--with-precision=single` and `--with-scalar-type=complex`). > > Also add -with-64bit-indices > > > - If your contribution can be logically decomposed into 2 or more > separate contributions, submit them in sequence instead of all at once. > > > Looks good, go ahead and add these. > > > """ > > > > 2018-03-01 15:10 GMT+01:00 Patrick Sanan <[email protected]>: > > A simple way to proceed would be to advise submitters to submit their > "atomic" PRs in a valid order. If change B depends on change A, then submit > A first, wait until merged, and then submit B. This would have the nice > side effect of not overwhelming the integrators. > > > > 2018-03-01 15:04 GMT+01:00 Vaclav Hapla <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> 1. 3. 2018 v 14:04, Patrick Sanan <[email protected]>: > >> > >> Maybe it would also help to add more explicit instructions to the wiki ( > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/wiki/Home#markdown- > header-contributing-to-petsc) on how to construct a branch that is likely > to get through the integration steps quickly. > >> > >> I'd suggest adding language about these (and volunteer to write it), > even if some might be obvious: > >> - Adding tests for whatever you submit > >> - Testing with configurations other than the usual double/real/C setup > (complex, single) > >> - Making the PR as small/atomic as possible (can your PR be 2 or more > separate PRs?) > > > > Yes, I think it's quite common that one would like to factor out one or > more smaller bugfixes and/or improvements from a bigger PR. But some of > them may depend on some others, and definitely the original big PR depends > on all of them. Perhaps it would be nice if there is some documented way of > specifying dependendencies between PRs to insure a proper order of merging > (I think BitBucket has no such feature?). > > > > Thanks, > > Vaclav > > > >> - Running through valgrind (using --download-mpich) before submitting > >> > >> 2018-03-01 12:33 GMT+01:00 Karl Rupp <[email protected]>: > >> Dear PETSc folks, > >> > >> I think we can do a better job when it comes to handling pull requests > (PRs). We have several PRs piling up, which after some time (imho) get > merged relatively carelessly instead of reaping the full benefits of a > thorough review. > >> > >> In order to improve the integration of pull requests, I propose to > nominate a PR integrator, who is a-priori responsible for *all* incoming > PRs. The PR integrator is free to delegate a particular PR integration to > someone with the relevant domain-specific knowledge (e.g. Matt for > DMPlex-related things) by appropriate comments on Bitbucket. In case of > delays, the PR integrator is also responsible for issuing reminders over > time (like Barry has done in the past). > >> > >> The idea is to make daily progress with the PRs. One integration step > per day (e.g. testing or merging to next) is presumably enough to handle > the load, whereas things get messy if we let things pile up. Automated > testing may help a bit in the future, but it doesn't release us from > properly reviewing the contributed code. > >> > >> Any objections to my PR integrator proposal? Any volunteers? ;-) > >> If nobody else wants to be the highly esteemed PR integrator, I can do > it. ;-) > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Karli > >> > > > > > > > > -- Stefano
