[Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

Wed Dec 3 23:57:46 CST 2014

Hi Jim,

Yes, assuming we leave things as planned (just shifted by one meeting due to
the missed quorum), the meeting next week is the cutoff for errata tickets
to be included and we would vote on the entire standard at the March meeting
next year.

As for the info keys proposal  sure, we¹ll move this forward as an MPI 4.0
ticket.

Martin

From:  Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  Main mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Date:  Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 1:24 AM
To:  Main mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject:  Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

Martin, 

Thanks for the correction -- I thought that the deadline for 3.1 readings
was Japan, and that it moved ahead a meeting because of the quorum issue.  I
guess I confused this with the errata deadline?

In any case, the info keys proposal is done and we should move it forward,
even though it may miss the 3.1 cutoff.

 ~Jim. 

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Martin Schulz <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:
> Hi Jim, all,
> 
> This ticket is on the agenda now as a reading (plenary) and we can certainly
> discuss the larger implications and how/where to handle this in the future.
> 
> However, note that based on the current timeline, this won¹t make it into MPI
> 3.1. At the moment, MPI 3.1 is slated to be completed in March. We can, of
> course, decide to change that, but if we allow new tickets this meeting for
> 3.1, this would push the a final version at least to September.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> From: Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 3:05 AM
> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> 
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
> 
> Just wanted to respond to the incomplete comment --
> 
> The intention with the info keys ticket was always to bring forward each info
> key or info key topic as a separate ticket.  I know there are a lot of info
> keys left that are very important, and hopefully we can continue to reach
> consensus and bring them forward to be voted on.  The wildcards info key
> proposal really represents the start of that process and should chart the
> course for future proposals.
> 
>  ~Jim.
> 
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Richard Graham <richardg at mellanox.com>
> wrote:
>> It has some of the interested parties, not all.  I am interested in such
>> items, and thought that the whole topic had fallen off the plate, so was very
>> surprised to hear there is a concrete proposal, which in my view is
>> incomplete.
>>  
>> Rich
>>  
>> 
>> From: mpi-forum [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jeff Hammond
>> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 3:29 AM
>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hybrid WG already had all the interested parties and was active. I don't
>> recall p2p WG was particularly active when discussion of 381 started ~2 years
>> ago. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As always, every member of the forum can participate in any WG and 381/461
>> were always discussed in the open for anyone to see.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As it currently stands, p2p WG has more than enough to discuss without this
>> ticket. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Note also that some of the info keys discussed have a greater impact when
>> threads are involved, hence are connected to hybrid.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Richard Graham <richardg at mellanox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why is such a proposal coming out of the hybrid working group ?  This is
>>> more appropriate for the point-to-point working group.  Not that it is that
>>> critical what the group name is, but more to get feedback from a wide range
>>> of folks interested is such topics.
>>>  
>>> Rich
>>>  
>>> From: mpi-forum [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Jim Dinan
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 8:58 AM
>>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The hybrid working group would like to put forward ticket #461
>>> (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/461) for consideration
>>> for MPI 3.1, with a formal reading at the upcoming December meeting.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> This ticket proposes the no_any_tag and no_any_source info keys, on which we
>>> have achieved consensus.  We continue to have vigorous and productive debate
>>> on additional communicator info keys proposals that have been captured in
>>> #381.  We will pursue these additional proposals for MPI 4.0.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks and see you in December,
>>> 
>>>  ~Jim.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpi-forum mailing list
>>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi-forum mailing list
>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20141204/2b5daf38/attachment-0001.html>