Thanks Mike.
I just updated the oshmem version number to 3:0:0 (not 4:0:0; the prior version
number was 2:0:1).
On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
> confirmed.
> Thanks
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
> Bert: good catch, thanks
>
> Mel
confirmed.
Thanks
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Bert: good catch, thanks
>
> Mellanox: can you confirm that this change was required?
>
> Sent from my phone. No type good.
>
> > On Jul 9, 2014, at 4:59 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
> >
> > Ouch - yes, we defini
Bert: good catch, thanks
Mellanox: can you confirm that this change was required?
Sent from my phone. No type good.
> On Jul 9, 2014, at 4:59 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
>
> Ouch - yes, we definitely should roll it to 4:0:0. I gather the ABI change
> was required to comply with the spec. I no
Ouch - yes, we definitely should roll it to 4:0:0. I gather the ABI change was
required to comply with the spec. I normally would refuse to allow an ABI
change during a stable release series, but have given more latitude to OSHMEM
due to its relatively new inclusion and the need to get it into c
Quoting "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" :
Here's what I think VERSION should be for 1.8.2:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/32165
I left comments in the VERSION file as to why I think each version
number should change.
Can someone please verify that this work is correct? If so, w
Here's what I think VERSION should be for 1.8.2:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/32165
I left comments in the VERSION file as to why I think each version number
should change.
Can someone please verify that this work is correct? If so, we can remove the
comments (before the f
