[Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Count ticket

[William Gropp]

Jeff,

I think you should go ahead with the reading.  If the chapter authors  
don't find anything (other than trivial items), then you are good to  
go.  If they do, well, the reading will be useful anyway.  Review by  
the chapter authors should not be *required* before a *reading*.  It  
is required before the first vote.

Bill

On Mar 4, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> Bwcompat WG --
>
> I'm kinda thinking that this means we won't be able to have a first  
> reading=
> by next meeting.  Getting reviews by the chapter authors takes time...
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: William Gropp <wgropp_at_[hidden]>
>> Date: March 4, 2011 5:41:07 PM EST
>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum_at_[hidden]>
>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Count ticket
>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum_at_[hidden]>
>> =20
>> Changes to the other chapters require at least the chapter author's  
>> revie=
> w.  They should do whatever they need to do to ensure that the  
> changes make=
> sense (so that roughly means they should review the whole ticket).
>> =20
>> It would be good if they're done by the first reading.  If they  
>> find some=
> thing that needs to be changed, other than something that meets  
> everyone's =
> definition of a trivial change, then you'd need to fix it and have a  
> new fi=
> rst reading.
>> =20
>> Bill
>> =20
>> On Mar 4, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> =20
>>> Forum --
>>> =20
>>> Sorry; I know we've discussed this a number of times, but they've  
>>> all go=
> tten jumbled in my head and I don't remember what was decided.
>>> =20
>>> We are bringing the MPI_Count ticket to the Forum for a first  
>>> reading in=
> Chicago.  Unfortunately, this ticket will span a bunch of chapters  
> (5 or 6=
> , I think).
>>> =20
>>> Do we have to get the individual sections of text reviewed by each  
>>> chapt=
> er committee?  And are they expected to review the *whole* ticket,  
> and then=
> double check/review it in the context of *their specific chapter*?   
> (I ask=
> because the text in one chapter doesn't really make sense without  
> the rest=
> of the text in the ticket)
>>> =20
>>> If we do need reviews from each chapter committee, do they need to  
>>> be co=
> mplete by the first reading?
>>> =20
>>> --=20
>>> Jeff Squyres
>>> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>>> For corporate legal information go to:
>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpi-forum mailing list
>>> mpi-forum_at_[hidden]
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>> =20
>> William Gropp
>> Deputy Director for Research
>> Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
>> Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
>> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi-forum mailing list
>> mpi-forum_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>
>
> --=20
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list
> Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat

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