Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
On Sep 22, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote: > if i read between the lines, it looks like the next stable branch will be > v2.0 and not v1.10 > is there a strong reason for that (such as ABI compatibility will break, or a > major but internal

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Gilles Gouaillardet
Folks, if i read between the lines, it looks like the next stable branch will be v2.0 and not v1.10 is there a strong reason for that (such as ABI compatibility will break, or a major but internal refactoring) ? /* other than v1.10 is less than v1.8 when comparing strings :-) */ Cheers, Gilles

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Pritchard Jr., Howard wrote: > I thought that 1.9.X release would at some point become the 2.0 release. > > I thought trunk would go to 2.1 once we branch 1.9 from trunk, no? Yeah, that's what I was implying. Sorry; I should have stated that

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Pritchard Jr., Howard
[mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:42 PM To: Open MPI Developers List Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9") On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > HmmmI see your point, but that means "1.9.5" would actually be lagging > *behind* "1.9.0", which also seems confusing. Usually, if we release a 1.9.0, > we concurrently roll the trunk to 2.0 to avoid the confusion. Is

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Ralph Castain
HmmmI see your point, but that means "1.9.5" would actually be lagging *behind* "1.9.0", which also seems confusing. Usually, if we release a 1.9.0, we concurrently roll the trunk to 2.0 to avoid the confusion. Is that not adequate? On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Aurélien Bouteiller

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Aurélien Bouteiller
During the phase where there is not yet a release of “next”, the README and other documentations employs the number of the not yet released upcoming version. Sometimes when these gets dispatched, outsiders get confused that they are using some release version, when in fact they are running a

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Ralph Castain
Not sure I understand - what do you mean by a "free" number?? On Sep 22, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Aurélien Bouteiller wrote: > Could also start at 1.9.1 instead of 1.9.0. That gives a free number for the > “trunk” nightly builds. > > > -- > ~~~ Aurélien Bouteiller,

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Aurélien Bouteiller
Could also start at 1.9.1 instead of 1.9.0. That gives a free number for the “trunk” nightly builds. -- ~~~ Aurélien Bouteiller, Ph.D. ~~~ ~ Research Scientist @ ICL ~ The University of Tennessee, Innovative Computing Laboratory 1122 Volunteer Blvd, suite 309, Knoxville,

[OMPI devel] RFC: "v1.9.0" (vs. "v1.9")

2014-09-22 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
WHAT: Change our version numbering scheme to always include all 3 numbers -- even when the 3rd number is 0. WHY: I think we made a mistake years ago when we designed the version number scheme. It's weird that we drop the last digit when it is 0. WHERE: Trivial patch. See below. WHEN: