[Mpi-forum] September MPI Forum / Agenda and Reminder to Register

[Schulz Martin]

Hi Pavan,

I found the same things confusing (for a reading) as Jeff. Nevertheless,
it may be good to add this to agenda to discuss the two  options, unless
you want to lead that discussion yourself next time.

Thanks,

Martin

________________________________________________________________________
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA





On 9/2/14, 3:30 PM, "Balaji, Pavan" <balaji at anl.gov> wrote:

>
>On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji at anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> The text has a single combined version.  There’s no two options in the
>>>text.
>> 
>> From 411:
>> 
>> "Proposed Solution:
>> 
>> ...
>> Two possible solutions are being proposed:
>> 
>> 	• We reserve the "mpi_" namespace and forbid implementations from
>>using keys in that name space.
>> 	• Solution 1 + we rename existing info keys to start with "mpi_" and
>>deprecate the older info key names.
>> The attached PDF provides solution 2, but it can easily be modified to
>>solution 1 by simply dropping some changes, since solution 1 is a proper
>>subset of solution 2. Specifically, the only change for solution 1 will
>>be the one sentence addition on the first page of Chapter 9 (page 365)."
>> 
>> Does your PDF not agree with your ticket text?
>> 
>> That is most confusing.
>
>OK.  The pdf is OK, but I’ll update the ticket text.
>
>>>> +1.  It looks like you missed the deadline due to inactivity.
>>> 
>>> Did I miss an email asking for tickets to be listed?  I thought we
>>>just upload the document on the ticket, which I did over a month ago.
>>>But I don’t want to fight for it.  If folks feel this can’t be a formal
>>>reading in September, we can do this in December.
>> 
>> Per the rules document:
>> 
>> "General text proposals use the following process to be accepted into
>>an MPI
>> standards document:
>> 
>> 1. Have a formal reading at a physical MPI Forum meeting where the
>>meeting
>> quorum has been met.
>> 
>> (a) The final text of the proposal to be read must be made publicly
>> available via the general MPI Forum broadcast email list at least
>> two weeks prior to the start date of the physical MPI Forum meeting
>> at which it is to be formally read."
>> 
>> I don't see an email from you on the mpi-forum mailing list announcing
>>411 until today.
>
>OK, thanks.  I’ll keep that in mind for the future.
>
>  — Pavan
>
>--
>Pavan Balaji  ✉️
>http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpi-forum mailing list
>mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum