[Mpi3-bwcompat] Phone conf schedule?

[Fab Tillier]

Solt, David George wrote on Tue, 17 May 2011 at 11:24:37

> 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 sent him my 3 new items.  I don't know if Jeff sent him the timer stuff or not.

> 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?

Sure, that sounds good.  Same time as usual, this Friday?

-Fab

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