To slightly expand on what Howard said: We'd basically fix ABI at the beginning of a stable series (i.e., 2.0.0), and maintain it for the entire stable series.
The rationale here is that the adoption we've seen is that production shops are (rightfully) just moving from stable series to stable series -- they're skipping the feature series. Meaning: ABI guarantees for the feature series don't seem that important. So why hamstring ourselves? Delay making final ABI decisions until the stable series. On Dec 18, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Howard Pritchard <hpprit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Jeff and I have been considering changing the ABI compatibility store fory > Open MPI for the 1.9/2.0 release stream. Basically no promises for the > odd/feature release series, but keep the current ABI promise for the > even release series. > > I've updated the 1.9/2.0 release page on the wiki to include this proposal. > > Please let us know if you think that it might be problematic to relax > the ABI compatibility promise in the features release series. > > This will be on the agenda for the developers' workshop next month. > > Thanks, > > Howard > > _______________________________________________ > 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/2014/12/16670.php -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
