Dear all,
My vote is +1 for the following reasons:
- Having a smaller codebase helps new developers to get familiar with the
codebase quickly, limits the amount of documentation to browse through for the
users, and makes the overall development faster.
- Having 2 separate repositories allows us to develop in a decoupled way, i.e.
if there is a urgent need for a functionality but it takes a lot of time to
adapt to the distributed parts, this can be done in 2 steps. I think it is not
a matter of having less work at CSCS as we would still participate to making
things work together with distributed; but is a matter of this adaptation work
not being a burden by choosing when to do it.
- HPX reputation: Some people have tried HPX in the past and have dropped it
for several reasons (lack of modularization, local and distributed parts not
separable, etc.). Giving it a new name (for the local part) and separate the
repositories can revive interest again and attract developers and users.
As a developer at CSCS, I also strongly hope to continue working with the HPX
community. My vote is +1 because there is demand for it at CSCS and I think HPX
image could benefit from it. But I wouldn't mind to keep working on one
repository either.
Best regards,
Auriane
________________________________
From: hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org <hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org>
on behalf of Simberg Mikael <mikael.simb...@cscs.ch>
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 9:53:06 PM
To: hpx-users@stellar-group.org; hpx-de...@stellar-group.org
Subject: {Spam?} [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two
smaller projects and repositories
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/):
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
