Sorry I missed a mail with the question.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:03:07AM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Don Kerr wrote:
>
> > both, I was thinking of listing what I think are multi-rail
> > requirements
> > but wanted to understand what the current state of things a
Brad Penoff wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007 3:26 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I have no objections to bringing this into the trunk, but I agree that
an .ompi_ignore is probably a good idea at first.
I'll try to cook up a commit soon then!
One question that I'd like to have answered is how OMPI
Hi,
The following files bother me about this commit:
trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sctp/sctp_writev.c
trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sctp/sctp_writev.h
They bother me for 2 reasons:
1. Their naming does not follow the prefix rule
2. They are LGPL licensed. While I personally like the LGPL, I do not
believe it
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:44:06AM -0800, Tim Prins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following files bother me about this commit:
> trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sctp/sctp_writev.c
> trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sctp/sctp_writev.h
>
> They bother me for 2 reasons:
> 1. Their naming does not follow the prefix rule
> 2.
Tim - excellent catch!
I totally agree. We must be very mindful of IP-related issues.
-jms
Sent from my PDA
-Original Message-
From: Tim Prins [mailto:tpr...@cs.indiana.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 09:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: de...@open-mpi.org
Subject:
On Nov 14, 2007 5:11 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
>
> Brad Penoff wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 2007 3:26 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >
> >> I have no objections to bringing this into the trunk, but I agree that
> >> an .ompi_ignore is probably a good idea at first.
> >>
> >
> > I'll try to cook up a commit soo
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Don Kerr wrote:
both, I was thinking of listing what I think are multi-rail
requirements
but wanted to understand what the current state of things are
I believe the OF portion of the FAQ describes what we do in the v1.2
series (ri
