On Mar 10, 2011, at 21:54 , Ralph Castain wrote:
> Future developers? Code? What are you talking about???
>
> This isn't in the code base, nor is it "code" - it is config options in the
> private platform files for configuring clusters of contributors. We -never-
> review what is in that area,
Future developers? Code? What are you talking about???
This isn't in the code base, nor is it "code" - it is config options in the
private platform files for configuring clusters of contributors. We -never-
review what is in that area, leaving it up to their respective owners. The
contents of t
No big deal one way or the other. It's a symbolic gesture against bit
rot, I suppose. The fact is that there are different pieces of the code
base that move forward while vestiges of old stuff get left behind
elsewhere. At first, it's easier to leave that stuff in. With time,
the history ge
On Mar 10, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>> Just stale code that doesn't hurt anything
>>
> Okay, so it'd be all right to remove those lines. Right?
They are in my platform files - why are they a concern?
Just asking - we don't normally worry about people's pla
Ralph Castain wrote:
Just stale code that doesn't hurt anything
Okay, so it'd be all right to remove those lines. Right?
- frankly, I wouldn't look at platform files to try to get a handle on such
things as they tend to fall out of date unless someone needs to change it.
We always hard-co
Just stale code that doesn't hurt anything - frankly, I wouldn't look at
platform files to try to get a handle on such things as they tend to fall out
of date unless someone needs to change it.
We always hard-code progress threads to off because the code isn't thread safe
in key areas involving
In the trunk, we hardwire progress threads to be off. E.g.,
% grep progress configure.ac
# Hardwire all progress threads to be off
enable_progress_threads="no"
[Hardcode the ORTE progress thread to be off])
[Hardcode the OMPI progress thread to be off])
So, h
