[Mpi3-rma] Updated MPI-3 RMA proposal 1

[Rajeev Thakur]

Are you refering to Accumulate_get :-)? Maybe it should be in Proposal
2.

Maybe we also need a "journal of development" as in MPI-2 :-).

But, seriously, we need to present a united front at least in proposal
1. Otherwise the Forum will have no confidence in us.

Rajeev

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org 
> [mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of 
> Pavan Balaji
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:57 PM
> To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] Updated MPI-3 RMA proposal 1
> 
> 
> On 06/20/2010 05:48 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
> > Proposal 1: This is what the RMA experts agree is the bare minimum 
> > needed to fix what is considered broken in MPI-2 RMA.
> 
> I don't agree that whatever is there in proposal 1 is the 
> "bare minimum". Maybe this policy should be reworded as: 
> *all* members of the working group should agree that this is needed.
> 
> This makes both proposal 1 and proposal 2 contain random 
> pieces of unrelated features, though.
> 
>   -- Pavan
> 
> --
> Pavan Balaji
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>