Thanks Ralph! In future, I'll try and remember to follow up on these things :)
Cheers, Richard On 10 April 2014 11:16, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > Not really - it's the responsibility of the developer to file the CMR. > Some folks are good about it, and some aren't. In this case, however, I > suspect it didn't happen because we didn't hear back that the patch fixed > the problem and was therefore correct :-/ > > > On Apr 10, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Richard Shaw <jr...@cita.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > Okay. Thanks for having a look Ralph! > > For future reference, is there a better process I can go through if I find > bugs like this that makes sure they don't get forgotten? > > Thanks, > Richard > > > On 10 April 2014 00:39, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > >> Wow - that's an ancient one. I'll see if it can be applied to 1.8.1. >> These things don't automatically go across - it requires that someone file >> a request to move it - and I think this commit came into the trunk after we >> branched for the 1.7 series. >> >> >> On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Richard Shaw <jr...@cita.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> I'm not sure I ever replied to this to say that the patch works perfectly >> (very belatedly)! >> >> However I just wanted to ask what the progress of getting this into a >> released version is? I'm not particularly sure on the details on the >> OpenMPI development process - I've noticed that it's still in the SVN >> trunk, but hasn't made it into any of the intervening releases (neither >> stables 1.6.2-, 1.8; nor feature releases 1.7 onwards). Will this end up in >> the 1.9 series? >> >> Richard >> >> >> On 24 July 2012 19:02, Richard Shaw <jr...@cita.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >>> Thanks George, I'm glad it wasn't just me being crazy. I'll try and >>> test that one soon. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Richard >>> >>> On Tuesday, 24 July, 2012 at 6:28 PM, George Bosilca wrote: >>> >>> Richard, >>> >>> Thanks for identifying this issue and for the short example. I can >>> confirm your original understanding was right, the upper bound should be >>> identical on all ranks. I just pushed a patch (r26862), let me know if this >>> fixes your issue. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> george. >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> us...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> us...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >
