On May 16, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Gong Ding wrote:
>> We really appreciate the work you've done on this, but
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) we can't accept patches to the released version of PETSc since that is
>> likely outdated compared to petsc-dev. We'd like all patches that can be
>> applied directly to petsc-dev
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/developers/index.html#Sending_patches_to_update_the_
>
> I did the edit based on petsc-3.1. OK, I will shift to petsc-dev.
> Our company always use Git, so I need to spend some time on Mercurial.
>
>
>> 2) as Jed mentioned in an earlier email. It is sort of over-kill to provide
>> an entire new matrix class with the hash table stuff. If instead it was
>> provided as runtime optional support directly in the SeqAIJ matrices that
>> would be simpler to maintain and for people to use. So you could just add
>> the additional data structure inside the Mat_SeqAIJ and then have
>> MatSetValues_SeqAIJ() use the hash table directly when appropriate.
>
> That's great if hash table can be introduced in AIJ.
> I used to think that your guys reject any changes to basic petsc objects.
In this case I think it is better to put in the basic object rather than
introduce an entire new class since everyone will benefit from it immediately
in the basic class.
Thanks
barry
>
>
