My $0.02USD: I agree that "just keep the bar high" for 1.7.4 is the right approach. In other words: just because I found all these issues doesn't mean they should delay 1.7.4. Considering most (possibly all) were in 1.7.3 and nobody noticed, what harm in leaving the issue unresolved in 1.7.4? If my help is needed to determine if a given issue was in 1.7.3 then just ask.
For those who don't know me, or have forgotten: I am not an MPI applications programmer or user, nor do I admin systems for people who are. If every single issue I reported were to be ignored and never fixed, it would not harm me in any way. I will push back if I ever think the core developers are making poor choices, but have no reason to "fight" for any particular issue to be fixed. I am a middleware developer who happens to have access to an exceptionally wide range of systems and compilers. I use those resources to work hard to ensure portability of my own s/w. Having known Jeff and Brian since the LAM/MPI days I occasionally apply my resources and knowledge to testing of Open MPI release candidates. -Paul On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Rolf vandeVaart <rvandeva...@nvidia.com>wrote: > Hi Ralph: > In my opinion, we still try to get to a stable 1.7.4. I think we can just > keep the bar high (as you said in the meeting) about what types of fixes > need to get into 1.7.4. I have been telling folks 1.7.4 would be ready > "really soon" so the idea of folding in 1.7.5 CMRs and delaying it is less > desirable to me. > > Can you remind me again about why the 1.8.0 by mid-March is a requirement? > > Thanks, > Rolf > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Ralph > >Castain > >Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:41 PM > >To: Open MPI Developers > >Subject: [OMPI devel] 1.7.4 status update > > > >Hi folks > > > >I think it is safe to say that we are not going to get a release > candidate out > >tonight - more Fortran problems have surfaced, along with the need to > >complete the ROMIO review. I have therefore concluded we cannot release > >1.7.4 this week. This leaves us with a couple of options: > > > >1. continue down this path, hopefully releasing 1.7.4 sometime next week, > >followed by 1.7.5 in the latter half of Feb. The risk here is that any > further > >slippage in 1.7.4/5 means that we will not release it as we must roll > 1.8.0 by > >mid-March. I'm not too concerned about most of those cmr's as they could > be > >considered minor bug fixes and pushed to the 1.8 series, but it leaves > >oshmem potentially pushed into 1.9.0. > > > >2. "promote" all the 1.7.5 cmr's into 1.7.4 and just do a single release > before > >ending the series. This eases the immediate schedule crunch, but means we > >will have to deal with all the bugs that surface when we destabilize the > 1.7 > >branch again. > > > > > >I'm open to suggestions. Please be prepared to discuss at next Tues > telecon. > >Ralph > > > >_______________________________________________ > >devel mailing list > >de...@open-mpi.org > >http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > may contain > confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or > distribution > is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the > sender by > reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > -- Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov Future Technologies Group Computer and Data Sciences Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
