I am not very happy with the decision of splitting HPX. Consistency is an important factor for us. Are we going to have a seperate release on each project? If there is a common bug between different platforms, we need to plan a release strategy to address it so as not to break a build on the other platforms. This doesn't seem to be simple and needs a product manager on each platform to monitor each release. I guess this plan will distract us from development to other not-that-important issues.
Best Regards, *Zahra Khatami* | Senior Compiler Engineer - HPC NVIDIA On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:49 AM Nanmiao Wu <wnan...@lsu.edu> wrote: > - -1: ‘no,’ ‘disagree’. > > I think splitting HPX to local and distributed ones would make developers > more difficult to make things consistent. > > Best, > Nanmiao > ------------------------------ > *From:* hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org < > hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org> on behalf of Weile Wei <ww...@lsu.edu > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 16, 2021 8:31 AM > *To:* hpx-users@stellar-group.org <hpx-users@stellar-group.org> > *Cc:* hpx-de...@stellar-group.org <hpx-de...@stellar-group.org> > *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: *hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org < > hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org> on behalf of Bita Hasheminezhad < > bhas...@lsu.edu> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 9:21 AM > *To: *hpx-users@stellar-group.org <hpx-users@stellar-group.org> > *Cc: *hpx-de...@stellar-group.org <hpx-de...@stellar-group.org> > *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:* hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org < > hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org> on behalf of Parsa Amini < > m...@parsaamini.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 16, 2021 8:41:22 AM > *To:* hpx-users@stellar-group.org <hpx-users@stellar-group.org> > *Cc:* hpx-de...@stellar-group.org <hpx-de...@stellar-group.org> > *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 <mikael.simb...@cscs.ch> > 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 > hpx-users@stellar-group.org > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users > > _______________________________________________ > hpx-users mailing list > hpx-users@stellar-group.org > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users >
_______________________________________________ hpx-users mailing list hpx-users@stellar-group.org https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users
