I've posted the text here: https://hpx.stellar-group.org/2021/08/23/statement-of-intent-to-split-hpx-into-multiple-independently-developed-libraries/. Let me know if you spot any problems.
Mikael ________________________________ From: Hartmut Kaiser <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 4:04:12 PM To: Simberg Mikael; [email protected] Subject: RE: [hpx-pmc] Request for feedback on "Statement on intent to split HPX into multiple independently developed libraries" Mikael, Thank you for putting this together. You have done a good job on summarizing our discussions and I have nothing to add. Regards Hartmut --------------- https://stellar-group.org https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx > Hi all, > > We've discussed in the biweekly meetings that we should release a > statement on what we intend to do after the vote last month (i.e. to go > forward with the proposal). I've prepared some text that we can publish on > the mailing list and blog. However, I'd be grateful if you'd be willing to > read through the statement to 1. see if you even agree with the statement, > and 2. suggest changes if needed. Note, I've written it from the > perspective of the PMC as a whole, since we as a whole voted in favour of > the proposal. If any of you are not comfortable with that we can change it > to only include specific names. > > ------ > Statement on intent to split HPX into multiple independently developed > libraries > > In July the HPX project management committee (PMC) proposed to split HPX > into two or more separate libraries, with separate repositories. There was > a vote on the topic on the hpx-users mailing list (https://www.mail- > archive.com/[email protected]/msg00134.html). Four out of five > PMC members voted +1 (agree with the proposal and willing to help to > realize it), and one voted +0 (agree with the proposal). Of the non-PMC > members voting, five voted -1 and two voted +1. > > With these results the PMC has nonetheless decided to move forward with > the proposal. Since this is contrary to what many of the non-PMC members > voted, we believe this requires some explanation to avoid confusion about > the next steps. > > Regardless of the exact details of how HPX will be split: > > - HPX as the name, project, and repository will continue to refer to the > top-level project which includes local and distributed functionality. > - The developers at CSCS focused on local-only HPX will continue to attend > the same mailing lists, IRC channels, and biweekly meetings with other HPX > developers. The separation into separate libraries makes responsibilities > of maintenance more explicit, but the overall development will still be > done together with other developers as before. > > The users voting against the proposal raised some concerns. We'd like > address them below. > > - "Not enough motivation to keep developing the distributed parts": > Splitting the repository will not affect the the available manpower to > develop distributed functionalities. CSCS's involvement in developing > distributed HPX has been mainly related to maintenance, and CSCS will > continue to provide e.g. continuous integration resources to the full HPX > project and will continue to coordinate larger changes with the rest of > the development team. If the fate of distributed HPX rested solely on > CSCS's involvement it would speak of a larger problem. Luckily that is not > the case, as there is interest from other institutions who we hope will be > able to fill the gaps and go further than CSCS's involvement in HPX so > far. > - "Test coverage will suffer": Test coverage will remain the same, though > there may be delays in fixing bugs in lower level libraries that affect > higher level libraries. On the other hand, lower level libraries can be > developed without being immediately held up by changes required to the > higher level libraries. Automated testing will be critical for this to > work. Higher level libraries should be tested against both stable and > unstable versions of the lower level libraries to catch API breaks and > bugs. > - "Maintaining similar APIs for local and distributed will be more > difficult": This is mainly a function of design discussions and reviews, > not the libraries being in the same repository. Local-only HPX developers > may still review changes in distributed features, when useful. > Additionally, distributed features will still be built on top of local > features when possible, just as now. > - "We need a release strategy and product manager for each library": Yes, > releases will need to be coordinated (though not necessary released > simultaneously) and this can be done as part of our current biweekly > meetings. Part of the motivation for CSCS to propose the split is to move > some of the responsibility of release management to others. This will of > course initially be a larger burden for other developers, but CSCS intends > to support them in the process. In addition, the release procedure for HPX > has already been streamlined, and once a developer is familiar with the > procedure it can be done relatively easily. Finally, the main burden of > creating a release is not in the technical work, but in deciding what > features to merge, when to prepare a release, and communicating the > changes in a release. These are all things that the CSCS developers are in > any case ill-equipped to do well for distributed functionality. > > We will proceed with the proposal in small steps, allowing us to back out > should any unresolvable issues arise. Importantly, we want this to impact > existing users of distributed HPX as little as possible. That means that > as the first step we will continue to adjust the actual split of libraries > within the current HPX repository. Once that is done, we will proceed to > release at least one version of HPX with one or more libraries split out > into separate repositories, but the top-level HPX repository still being > the only way to consume HPX. Once that has been completed, continuous > integration has been set up for all the sub-projects, issue tracking and > release plans are set up we will start developing the separate libraries > more independently. > > We hope that this clears at least some of the concerns regarding the > split. If there are unanswered or new concerns we'd be happy to hear them > and respond to them. > > ----- > > Mikael
_______________________________________________ hpx-pmc mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-pmc
