Send hpx-devel mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of hpx-devel digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least
two smaller projects and repositories (Nanmiao Wu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:48:50 +0000
From: Nanmiao Wu <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [hpx-devel] [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into
at least two smaller projects and repositories
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<bn7pr06mb6371dd5df9b807f989824d1ae9...@bn7pr06mb6371.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
- -1: ?no,? ?disagree?.
I think splitting HPX to local and distributed ones would make developers more
difficult to make things consistent.
Best,
Nanmiao
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
on behalf of Weile Wei <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 8:31 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller
projects and repositories
- -1: ?no,? ?disagree?.
I believe splitting the HPX to local and distributed cases will impact the test
coverage, which is fundamentally important to a scalable software project. More
importantly, HPX has good record on maintain similar APIs for local and
distributed cases; with such split, it might be difficult to spot bugs, if any.
Best,
Weile
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
on behalf of Bita Hasheminezhad <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 9:21 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller
projects and repositories
--1, My justification for not addressing the issue:
I think developing projects on top of HPX would become extremely difficult. The
goal for that software is probably to benefit all aspects of what HPX provides.
HPX's idea of providing a stable semantic-C++ local and distributed parallel
functionalities and having a successful history of achieving that are its
essential features and what differentiates HPX from other not-so-successful
projects.
Regards,
Bita
Get Outlook for
iOS<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef&data=04%7C01%7Cwnanmi1%40lsu.edu%7Ca2a00a2e9a024dc7c51308d930d366dd%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637594506829418160%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=suDexUd6sMfSqPLA9mG9Y%2FIzDRA6X8bbGARIVgMSobc%3D&reserved=0>
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
on behalf of Parsa Amini <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 8:41:22 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller
projects and repositories
- -1: ?no,? ?disagree?.
> justification for not addressing the issue
Separating the fundamental distributed and local-only functionalities of HPX
compromises the project's integrity over time, if not rapidly, for the obvious
reason that there will not be enough motivation to keep both in working co
simultaneously. This will exacerbate if they are maintained in separate
repositories but is still a problem even if they are maintained in the same
repository (e.g., HPX support for Vc, HPX examples repository, MiniGhost,
HPXCL).
That this interest exists is understandable because our excellent collaborators
at the CSCS have had to invest significant time and resources to maintain the
distributed functionalities of HPX, which, at least in the short term, has not
been sufficiently rewarding. On the other hand, the problem will be the
opposite if the distributed functionalities become the focus, which will not be
ideal either.
Sincerely,
Parsa Amini
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Simberg Mikael
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear HPX users and developers,
The HPX users and developers at CSCS (that includes myself) have expressed an
interest in separating the local-only and distributed functionality of HPX into
two separate projects and repositories. This is a contentious topic, so before
we do a large change like this we want to consult the community through a vote.
My personal vote and motivation for the change will follow in a separate
message.
Practically speaking, the proposal is to move the on-node functionality of HPX
(this includes futures, algorithms, basic CUDA/HIP support, a local-only
runtime, and all the utilities required to support this) into a separate
repository. The remaining distributed functionality of HPX would keep the hpx
name, stay in the current repository, and it would gain one new dependency,
called (e.g.) hpx-local. Releases of hpx and hpx-local would often be done
together, but could be done independently of each other. The aim is to affect
current users of distributed features of HPX as little as possible, while
giving users of local-only features a project that, by default, gives them only
local functionality. If there's consensus to go ahead with a split, we will
also consider splitting HPX into more than two projects.
Voting works as follows (from
https://hpx.stellar-group.org/governance/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhpx.stellar-group.org%2Fgovernance%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cwnanmi1%40lsu.edu%7Ca2a00a2e9a024dc7c51308d930d366dd%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637594506829428151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=HuZxqzfPL5Ty4ddSzM4dhQ85kGvzuap3QqFLJunvRdY%3D&reserved=0>):
If a formal vote on a proposal is called (signaled simply by sending a email
with [VOTE] in the subject line), all participants on the HPX user?s mailing
list may express an opinion and vote. They do this by sending an email in reply
to the original [VOTE] email, with the following vote and information:
- +1: ?yes?, ?agree?: also willing to help bring about the proposed action
- +0: ?yes?, ?agree?: not willing or able to help bring about the proposed
action
- -0: ?no?, ?disagree?: but will not oppose the action?s going forward
- -1: ?no?, ?disagree?: opposes the action?s going forward and must propose an
alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for not addressing
the issue)
This is a "Concensus approval" vote (see governance document for details).
Responses from developers and users alike are encouraged. Please vote as soon
as possible, but we will leave the voting open until Thursday 17th June.
Kind regards,
Mikael Simberg
_______________________________________________
hpx-users mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mail.cct.lsu.edu/pipermail/hpx-devel/attachments/20210616/55524d69/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
hpx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-devel
End of hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 9
****************************************
