[Mpi3-bwcompat] Phone conf schedule?

[Solt, David George]

One other cleanup point.   Rich requested:

> One more thing.  Those of you that have an item on the list (and those that are adding
> items) - please send me a 1-2 sentence explanation that we can use as a description."

Has anyone sent him anything yet?

I am open to working on other miscellaneous or backward compatibility related issues.   I could schedule a one-time meeting to discuss our future and then decide if we should continue with a re-occurring meeting?

Thanks,
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Fab Tillier
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:17 PM
To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG
Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Phone conf schedule?

Quincey Koziol wrote on Tue, 17 May 2011 at 11:09:15

> On May 17, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Fab Tillier wrote:
> 
>> The meeting request I had expired 4/15/2011.  Do we want to resume it?
>> 
>> Couple topics of interest, actually on topic for our working group:
>> - Removing deprecated functions (e.g. MPI_UB, MPI_LB, etc.) from MPI
>> 3.0.  They are still available via MPI 2.2 support, and an implementation can
>> easily provide concurrent support for MPI 2.2 and MPI 3.0, should that be
>> required.
>> - Defining the C++ bindings as optional in MPI 3.0.  This allows
>> implementations that do not ship C++ bindings to be standard compliant.
>> - Removing C++ bindings from MPI 3.0.  This one goes counter to the
>> previous one, but follows the same logic as for the other deprecated
>> functions.  If we don't provide C++ bindings for new MPI 3.0
>> functionality, we should remove them from MPI 3.0.  They can still be
>> supported via MPI 2.2 compliance.
> 
> 	Anything to discuss about const buffers?

We passed the first reading, so we're going for 1st vote at the next meeting.  There was one minor ticket0 wording change for the IN description, but nothing major.  I don't think there's much to discuss at this point.

> 	I've got someone working on extensions to the datatype
> construction routines, creating a use case/justification for why we should add
> those routines to 3.0.  Adam Moody was going to create a ticket for those,
> once I give him this use case document.  [Dunno if we need to talk about
> anything yet on this though]

That would be nice to see.  Jeff and I are also working on the MPI Timer request stuff, don't know if we want to discuss that in this working group, I'd be up for it, I like this crowd...

-Fab

_______________________________________________
Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list
Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat