[Mpi-forum] MPI-2.2 errata tickets - may be urgent

[William Gropp]

I agree with Dave on these, particularly the trivial text changes.  

The way that these were handled for MPI 2.0 errata was by providing a web page and forum for discussion, followed by creating a detailed document with the changes (which we already have for previous 2.2 errata), which was then voted on, as a group and once, through an email vote of the Forum (this preceded the current sequence of meetings).  For anything that is an errata item, this process has worked well.  

I think it is too late to make the change in 196 for MPI 2.2, but it should be considered for 3.0 (by the chapter committee).

Bill

On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:

> ==Executive summary==
> 
> Only #196 and #198 might possibly need to be discussed by and voted upon by the whole Forum.  However, neither is an especially pressing or interesting issue.  All of the rest of the tickets just require that the chapter authors are diligent and correct all of the small issues contained in these tickets for their respective chapters.
> 
> 
> ==Detailed review==
> 
> #166, #170, #172, #177, #179, #181, #183, #186, #191, #197, #200, #201, and #202 are all trivial text changes that should be absorbed by the appropriate chapter committees.  ***We must not waste our time reading these and voting on them in the whole Forum***
> 
> As long as C++ is deprecated then we should avoid taking any action on #59, #190, or #192.  However #190 and #192 are trivial if the relevant chapter committees want to fix them.
> 
> #199 is a very small (sort of) problem w.r.t. our inconsistent IN/OUT/INOUT usage.  I'm inclined to say that we should leave this up to the chapter committee as well.  Fab could do us all a favor by withdrawing it again.
> 
> #176, #178, and #261 aren't trivial, but they can easily be handled by a short discussion within the relevant chapter committees.
> 
> I've withdrawn #193 as a duplicate of #201.
> 
> #196 might warrant some discussion, although I personally think that the issue is pointless.
> 
> #198 is something that needs to be handled by chapter authors/committees, although the correct action to take would need to be decided by a beauty contest at the forum level.  My personal view is that this ticket is a waste of time.
> 
> -Dave
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:33 AM CST, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
> 
>> Rich and all Forum members, 
>> 
>> it looks like that the whole Forum forgot that there are also 
>> MPI-2.2 errata tickets:
>> 
>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&version=MPI+2.2+errata&group=priority&max=1000&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=owner&col=type&col=milestone&col=changetime&col=implementation&col=reporter&col=cc&order=priority
>> 
>> 1 is passed
>> 6 are waiting for reviews
>> 17 seems to need some work
>> 
>> Who may volonteer to look at these 23 issues = bugs in the current MPI-2.2
>> 
>> As long as they are all ticket 0 they can be done in Japan.
>> 
>> 5 tickets are "correction to the standard" and usually need
>> 1 reading + 2 vote meetings.
>> This means that some of these tickets are urgent in the sense
>> that they should be scheduled and read in the March meeting.
>> 
>> The forum should be responsible to remove known bugs.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

William Gropp
Director, Parallel Computing Institute
Deputy Director for Research
Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign