[Mpi3-hybridpm] External interfaces chapter updates

Bronis R. de Supinski bronis at llnl.gov
Mon Nov 1 08:59:42 CDT 2010


Bill:

OK, the fact that we won't vote on each individual wording
change was escaping me somewhat. Hopefully we won't hash
over each individual change either. I hope folks who want
to comment on them will do so through the chapter committees.

Bronis




On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, William Gropp wrote:

> We're not planning on voting on each individual wording change, just
> tracking them to make it easy to identify them.  In the MPI-1 and
> MPI-2 process, the chapter committees were responsible for their
> chapters, with the forum voting on the chapter (or significant and
> separable sections of it) rather than on each individual change.  This
> worked better than the ticket process because it focuses attention on
> the chapter, not individual sentences or paragraphs.
>
> Bill
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
>
>>
>> Bill:
>>
>> Doesn't it seem like it would be useful to partition
>> the changes into the issues that motivate them? It
>> would seem we could use the ticket number as a way
>> to do that.
>>
>> Otherwise, it will be hard to tell minor wording changes
>> that can be considered individually from those that need
>> acceptance of a more significant overall change.
>>
>> Bronis
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010, William Gropp wrote:
>>
>>> We don't need tickets for edits to the document - tickets were the
>>> appropriate way to manage minor corrections to the document but don't
>>> help the process of developing a new or greatly revised chapter.  The
>>> RMA group has two proposals on its wiki, both of which are in the
>>> context of complete chapters.  A drawback to tickets was they made it
>>> possible to think that by reading the ticket, the issue was
>>> understood.  This caused several problems in the prior rounds, and
>>> would be more serious here.
>>>
>>> So, no ticket is needed.  Following the written instructions, a zero
>>> (0) may be used.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Oct 30, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pavan:
>>>>
>>>> Re:
>>>>>> 2. You need to annotate your proposed changes with ticket
>>>>>> numbers. I suggest that we need separate tickets for each
>>>>>> of the major additions. Isee that ticket 217:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://BLOCKEDBLOCKEDsvn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/217
>>>>>>
>>>>>> covers the helper threads proposal. We will need ticekts
>>>>>> for the shared memory extensions and endpoints.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the process was changing out of using tickets for the
>>>>> changes
>>>>> for MPI-3. If not we can update this once all the tickets have been
>>>>> created.
>>>>
>>>> The change tracking macros include a ticket number field.
>>>> My understanding is that for simple wording changes for
>>>> things like grammatical issues on which the chapter
>>>> reaches consensus then we can use "ticket 0". For more
>>>> significant changes, like major additions, my understanding
>>>> is that they are still supposed to use a separate ticket.
>>>> However, the revised text should be in LaTex so that
>>>> we vote on it as part of the ticket.
>>>>
>>>> Bill and/or Rich should confirm or correct.
>>>>
>>>> Bronis
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list