Trilinos Framework: Next Steps

Trilinos Framework: Next Steps Thursday November 9, 2006 8:45-9:30 a.m. Jim Willenbring Mike Phenow

Overview • General Trilinos issues and challenges • New make targets • New process checklist ideas • Release 7.0 review • CVS vs SVN • Customized test harness runs for • Yourself • Apps groups • External collaboration • Future framework development efforts

General Trilinos Issues and Challenges • What, in your mind, are the 2-3 top general issues facing Trilinos? • We will • discuss things throughout the day • gather a list at the end of the day

New Make Targets • Proposed set of make targets: • make - Builds just the libraries • make install - Installs just the libraries • make clean - Cleans just the libraries and object files for the libraries • make examples - Makes just the examples (assumes libraries are built) • make install-examples - Install the examples (assumes libraries are installed) • make clean-examples - Cleans just the examples (not the libraries) • make tests - Makes just the tests (assumes libraries are built) • make clean-tests - Cleans just the tests (not the libraries) • make everything - Builds libraries, tests, and examples • make install-everything - Installs libraries and examples • make clean-everything - Cleans the tests, examples, and the libraries

New process checklist ideas • Adding a file to the repository? • Adding a test, example, etc? • Other ideas • New checklists • Revisions to current checklists

Release 7.0 Review • What we want to improve for the next release • Installation testing • Tarball verification • Automated testing/reporting • Can begin working on this before the freeze • Keep up with changes between releases • Late entry decisions • Continue to handle case by case • Should try to avoid • Time is built in for unavoidable situations • Timing – spring should be better than late summer • Other suggestions?

CVS vs SVN • Should we switch to SVN? • Pros • Directories, renames, and file meta-data are versioned • No part of a commit takes place until theentire commit has succeeded • Revision numbers are per-commit, not per-file (makes backing out changes easier) • Log messages are attached to the revision, not stored redundantly • Efficient handling of binary files

CVS vs SVN • Should we switch to SVN? • Pros (continued) • Can use the Apache HTTP server to allow external access to the repository (no account necessary on server) • Directory specific write controls (also possible with CVS, maybe easier with SVN???) • Cons • Bonsai does not fully work with SVN yet

CVS vs SVN • If we switch to SVN at some point • There are tools to convert a CVS repository to SVN • We could experiment with SVN before converting

Customized Test Harness Runs • If you would like any Trilinos branch to be tested periodically with a particular set of options, send those options to trilinos-framework@software.sandia.gov • These tests will be run on the old Beowulf cluster at SJU

External Collaboration • External package capability • Provides a simple way to plug a non-Trilinos package into the Trilinos build system • See Trilinos/packages/external/README • External package must understand • configure • make • Minimal setup is required • Can take advantage • Makefile.export • make runtests targets

External Collaboration • What should we do for external packages that want some support (tools), but choose not to or cannot be a part of Trilinos? • Try to organize a common repository of “Trilinos Compatible” code? • Sourcforge? • Should we try to test the code in any way? • Leave them on their own?

Future framework development efforts • Holes in current tools? • New tools?

Special Thanks • Thank you to Ross Bartlett, Mike Heroux, Eric Phipps, Marzio Sala, and anyone else who provided content for this discussion!

Trilinos Framework: Next Steps