Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

Hi, This is exactly the way we handle it now. We have internal branch on top of v1.7 with all SHMEM code in it. It runs mtt and other tests. Once we done with all changes - we will provide patch (and branch direct access if needed) for GK. Kind Regards Mike. On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Bar

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

I think Brian's point is that it should be a SVN branch. On Oct 29, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Mike Dubman wrote: > Hi, > This is exactly the way we handle it now. We have internal branch on top of > v1.7 with all SHMEM code in it. > It runs mtt and other tests. > > Once we done with all changes - we

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

will it be ok, that once all is ready, we push git2svn branch for this? On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) < jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > I think Brian's point is that it should be a SVN branch. > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Mike Dubman wrote: > > > Hi, > > This is e

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

I'm not sure what you mean. Brian's proposal was that y'all the shmem stuff go into a single SVN branch off the v1.7 branch. This way, it can be reviewed properly and easily merged into the actual v1.7 SVN branch. Sent from my phone. No type good. On Oct 29, 2013, at 7:09 AM, "Mike Dubman" mai

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

On Oct 29, 2013, at 7:16 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" wrote: > ...that y'all the shmem stuff... I guess this is what happens when you buy an iPhone in Kentucky. DYAC! -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/leg

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

I wondered where that was coming from. -Original Message- From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:53 AM To: Open MPI Developers Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal On Oct 29, 2013, at 7:16 AM,

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

1) thanks for jumping in before I woke up 2) y'all? You've been in Kentucky too long :) Brian Sent with Good (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) [jsquy...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 05:17 AM Mountain Standard Time

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

Yes, what's important is that 1) we all have a way to review the final merge (which means a public branch) and 2) it's easy for the GK to merge. Brian Sent with Good (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) [jsquy...@cisco.com] Sent:

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

I think the community’s concerns are valid. What Mike is articulating is that we already maintain a “1.7 ready” OSHMEM branch internally. I think it should be a simple procedure to do as Brian and Ralph are suggesting and branch off of 1.7 in SVN and apply our patches. We can do this. Josh Fro

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

yes, this is what I tried to suggest :) we export our git branch to svn in openmpi.org for review. On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Joshua Ladd wrote: > I think the community’s concerns are valid. What Mike is articulating is > that we already maintain a “1.7 ready” OSHMEM branch internally. I

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

That would be fine - thanks! When you do the export, please setup the "svn ignore" properties after you do your test build. Those don't get set by git, of course. On Oct 29, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Mike Dubman wrote: > yes, this is what I tried to suggest :) > we export our git branch to svn in ope

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

Mike, I've never personally used git2svn, but my understanding is that it would require us to essentially "lock" the repository to all other commits while you are using it, which isn't very friendly to the rest of the community. Also, using git2svn probably wouldn't twiddle the SVN merge track

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

As I understood it, they would create a new 1.7 branch and use git2svn to merge into it - i.e., there would be a new 1.7 branch that had their changes in it. The GK could then use "reintegrate" to bring those changes into the official 1.7 branch. On Oct 29, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Dave Goodell (dgoo

Re: [OMPI devel] SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

We probably will generate single patch with all changes applied in v1.7 for shmem and create svn branch from 1.7 + patch. Im sorry, did not mean we port git history from git to svn, it sounds trouble. Mike, I've never personally used git2svn, but my understanding is that it would require us to es

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: SHMEM v1.7 merge proposal

+1 -- sounds good, thanks! Just put the branch under /tmp; that's where we typically put short-lived branches. E.g., http://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/ompi/tmp/oshmem-for-v1.7, or somesuch. On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > That would be fine - thanks! > > When you do the expo

[OMPI devel] CM PML / OpenSHMEM

Mellanox - It looks like someone fixed the segfault when calling start_pes() when the CM PML is in use. However, I'm not sure that a clean abort is much better. With the proc tags code (in both the trunk and v1.7), there's no reason that you can't initialize both the btls and mtls. This may req

Re: [OMPI devel] CM PML / OpenSHMEM

I think the issue that may have caused this was the need for a double modex if the MPI layer selected a PML that used an MTL, and then the user provided oshmem MCA params specifying they use the BTL-related SPML component. My guess is that the defaults wound up creating that situation, which the

Re: [OMPI devel] CM PML / OpenSHMEM

These (and others) are exactly the issues we need to discuss with you guys next week. Josh -Original Message- From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Castain Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:29 PM To: Open MPI Developers Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] CM PML / Ope

Re: [OMPI devel] CM PML / OpenSHMEM

Did that time get finalized? I recall the doodle, but not seeing a final decision On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Joshua Ladd wrote: > These (and others) are exactly the issues we need to discuss with you guys > next week. > > Josh > > -Original Message- > From: devel [mailto:devel-bo

Re: [OMPI devel] CM PML / OpenSHMEM

I knew someone was going to ask :) Mike asked me to add 2pm EST to the times listed. Can you guys go and update those boxes? It looks like Thursday 2pm EST is our best shot at convergence. -Original Message- From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Castain Sen

Re: [OMPI devel] CM PML / OpenSHMEM

What was the doodle link again? On Oct 29, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Joshua Ladd wrote: > I knew someone was going to ask :) > > Mike asked me to add 2pm EST to the times listed. Can you guys go and update > those boxes? It looks like Thursday 2pm EST is our best shot at convergence. > > -Origi

Re: [OMPI devel] CM PML / OpenSHMEM

I don't have the doodle link, but fwiw, that time is fine with me. On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > What was the doodle link again? > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Joshua Ladd wrote: > >> I knew someone was going to ask :) >> >> Mike asked me to add 2pm EST to