Don't look at me - I didn't care to begin with as I never use -x and won't be using this param! :-)
My point was only that having both is clunky and leads to potential conflict. No good solution, so <shrug> On Jul 16, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) <dgood...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > >> Nobody was "against" retaining it. The issue is that "-x" isn't an MCA >> parameter, nor does it get translated to one under the covers. So the >> problem was one of how to insert it into the typical MCA param precedence >> chain. > > I understand the combination of the two features is clunky and could lead to > odd corner cases, but the "-x" argument is a feature I actually use on a > fairly regular basis, but I am unlikely to use mca_base_env_list unless given > no other choice. It's just a worse, clunkier interface unless one really > needs to set that MCA parameter via environment variable. > > So can we just strike the deprecation warning that is currently issued when > "-x" is passed in the absence of "mca_base_env_list"? > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/07/15176.php
