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
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
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
[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:
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
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
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
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,
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,
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:
10 matches
Mail list logo