[Mpi-22] Ticket #46: Add const Keyword to the C bindings-implementation

[Erez Haba]

Thanks Brian,

My recollection of the last meeting is that opening tickets #129 & #130 was the forum recommendation. I don't recall anyone saying that we can't vote on #46 if there are any amendments in new tickets.

However, I do see your point and I will prepare a new proposal that captures tickets #46, #129 and #130 for the next meeting, where we'll get the forum feedback if we want to proceed with the new ticket or ticket #46. (as it does reset the clock and requires some more work from the forum). I am okay with it either way.

Thanks,
.Erez

-----Original Message-----
From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Barrett, Brian W
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:37 PM
To: MPI 2.2
Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #46: Add const Keyword to the C bindings-implementation

No, there was an objection (rightly) to modifying a proposal that had been
voted on.  I'm saying remove #46, #129, and #130 from consideration, and
start an entirely new proposal from day 1 that is complete.  Otherwise,
we're setting a horrible precedent that it's ok to vote in things that are
known to be wrong, because we can just fix them later.  In fact, I believe
there was suggestion to do exactly that at the last meeting, but you chose
to add new proposals instead.

Brian

On 3/19/09 16:32 , "Erez Haba" <erezh_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Since we already passed first vote, there was an objection to that in the last
> meeting.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Barrett, Brian W
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:28 PM
> To: MPI 2.2
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #46: Add const Keyword to the C
> bindings-implementation
> 
> On 3/19/09 16:00 , "Erez Haba" <erezh_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> As to rushing this in, I'm curious, this ticket is there for over a year;
>> already implemented twice and tested by two different bodies. Is this really
>> rushing it in?
>> 
>> As to the procedural issues. This ticket is one of the first tickets that we
>> had in the system, and of-course as the mpi forum body we did learn a thing
>> or
>> two in that process, unfortunately, first implemented with that ticket. So
>> yes
>> there would be issues.  I think that we can resolve these 'issues' but puting
>> dependency on passing this ticket given that we accept the other two
>> corrections to the ticket.
> 
> We're not too late to submit a new proposal to 2.2, as I understand it.  Why
> not do the right thing, pull #46, #129, and #130, bundle them into a new
> proposal, get comments, and remove the procedural issues?  I think the
> hesitancy to do this only adds to my worry about this proposal, and is part
> of the view people have of "rushing it it".
> 
> Brian
> 
> --
>    Brian W. Barrett
>    Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software
>    Sandia National Laboratories
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
> 


--
   Brian W. Barrett
   Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software
   Sandia National Laboratories
_______________________________________________
mpi-22 mailing list
mpi-22_at_[hidden]
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22