On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:41 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > A careful reading of the committed patch, would have pointed out that none of > the concerns raised so far were true, the "old-way" behavior of the OMPI code > was preserved.
Then perhaps you could have added some comments to explain the not-obvious semantics, and less people would have argued. :-) > Moreover, every single of the error codes removed were not used in ages. On the trunk. It is highly likely that no one else is using those codes anywhere, but you can't *know* that. A courtesy RFC is always a good idea here. Indeed, you have railed against exactly this kind of behavior before: people changing things on the trunk that had impact on your private research branches. :-) > What Brian pointed out as evil, evil being a subjective notion by itself, > didn't prevent the correct behavior of the code, nor affected in any way it's > correctness. Anyway, to address his concern I pushed a patch (25333) putting > the OMPI error codes back where they were originally. The point was that an RFC would have been a much less controversial way of doing this, especially since the code turned out to be fairly subtle, un-commented, and different than what has been done in the past. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
