Hi Alain, please don't get me wrong. I would certainly appreciate merging the develop branch to the master to get improvements and new features in boost.mpi. And if develop is well tested already, I do not see any reason not to merge it. But I'm not in charge...
I just think the merge deserves to be independent of merely fixing the master branch. The changes in develop are worth way more than just fixing a regression. I also do understand that you would like to avoid cherry-picking from develop to master, but we are taking about a regression fix, not new developments. In fact I was just about to submit my own merge request of the patch I wrote for this bug, when I found a similar fix in the develop branch. Best, Richard On 07/14/2017 08:50 PM, Alain Miniussi wrote: > Hi Richard, > > On 14/07/2017 18:54, Richard via Boost-mpi wrote: >> Hi Alain, >> >> I'm not a boost developer so I'm not sure what boost's policies are. >> In my opinion merging develop to master and fixing the regression are >> two separate issues, which should get addressed separately. >> I think taking a broken master as an "excuse" to merge a development >> branch is not a good idea. You should merge a development branch because >> it has nice new features and other desirable improvements, not because >> it will also fix the tiny problem which put the master branch into an >> unusable state. > Well, as pointed out, develop *has* interesting features. > Whatever is in develop has been put there through pull requests > from either other branches of the repository (for people with access) > or repository forks, and hopefully discussed and validated. > Develop is not an experimental branch. > It's just not supposed to be tested as deeply as master before being > accepted. But it's been a few months now since the testing of develop > is actually in better shape than the one of master (probably just for > that bug though). > > But I get your point and merging that specific change is certainly an > options. > > Note that it's been a long time since changes made to develop are > not transfered to master and that has consequences too. It basically > means that there are no reason to contribute to Boost.MPI. > > Regards > > Alain >> The merging process may also take a while due to code reviews of large >> changes. >> >> On the other hand, a bug that breaks the master should get addressed >> with a proper fix as soon as possible (unless the another library >> changed in such a substantial way, that large parts of the code need to >> be adapted - which does not seem to be the case here). >> Ideally, fixing such a bug should be possible within a very short time, >> since only a small fix has to be reviewed. >> If can be of any help of any help on this matter, please let me know. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> On 07/14/2017 04:35 PM, Alain Miniussi via Boost-mpi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As you probably know, 1.64 is not building. That reflect the fact that >>> serialization/master broke backward compatibility (in the detail area, a >>> part Boost.MPI should not rely on in the first place, but that's another >>> story). >>> >>> MPI/develop is ok in that respect, as a mater of fact develop seems to >>> pass its tests on all the platforms I have access to (linux with g++ >>> icpc and intel MPIs). >>> >>> I proposed https://github.com/boostorg/mpi/pull/46 in February which is >>> a merge from develop on master, hoping it would be in for 1.64. It is my >>> opinion that develop should be regularly merge on master after proper >>> testing, but that opinion is not shared by all the people with merge >>> authorization. >>> >>> You can read the discussion in https://github.com/boostorg/mpi/pull/46 >>> for details. Basically the argument against merging is that it would >>> break some antique platform, but I was unable to get the informations: >>> which platform, what breaks, compile error messages etc... >>> >>> It's been suggested to only move changes to master through cherry >>> picking, which I'm against since I think it's a maintenance nghtmare >>> that waste contributor's time and efforts. >>> >>> So right now, what I would like to see is a merge of develop to master >>> or a clear description of what to be fixed in develop preventing that. >>> >>> The pro and cons I can think of: >>> >>> PROS: >>> >>> - Master is broken anyway >>> - All the test I was able to perform passed ok >>> - develop has some interesting features (cartesian communicator, >>> variable size versions of global operations to name some) >>> >>> CONS: >>> >>> - If I do the merge, I'll be both the guy who submitted the pull request >>> and the one validating the pool request, which is not good practice IMO. >>> - some test are failing in >>> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/mpi.html, but >>> the only messages I could get indicates a configuration error (some flag >>> is used that is not supported by the compiler). >>> - linked to the previous problem: I only have access to some platform >>> (linus, intel and gnu compilers, Intel and some OpenMPI). As you know, >>> the cross product of plateform/MPI/compiler version is...big. >>> >>> So, I would like to have your input on that issue (maybe through >>> https://github.com/boostorg/mpi/pull/46, maybe not ?) and, very >>> important, if you could test develop on your platform and share the >>> results. >>> >>> Do you think we should try to get develop on master for the 1.65 ? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Alain >>> >>> >>> On 14/07/2017 10:17, Alain Miniussi via Boost-mpi wrote: >>> >>>> Please see the discussion in: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/boostorg/mpi/pull/46 >>>> >>>> I'm going to send an email to the list to see what we can do. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Alain >>>> >>>> On 13/07/2017 20:20, Richard via Boost-mpi wrote: >>>>> Dear Boost MPI developers and maintainers, >>>>> >>>>> since none of the developers or maintainers commented on the ticket >>>>> within the last half a year, I would like to make sure you are >>>>> aware of >>>>> this bug: >>>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/12723 >>>>> >>>>> Could someone please see to it that this does not make it to the next >>>>> release? >>>>> It's really not difficult to fix and I think it's pretty bad this made >>>>> it to boost 1.64. >>>>> >>>>> But now it's even in 1.65.0 beta 1!! >>>>> >>>>> Why doesn't the simple fix in the develop branch of boost mpi get >>>>> merged? >>>>> (https://github.com/boostorg/mpi/commit/f5bdcc1ebfe954bb64835f2a0efd94471da42207) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would be really grateful if boost 1.65.0 had a working boost mpi >>>>> again. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Richard >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Boost-mpi mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Boost-mpi mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Boost-mpi mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Boost-mpi mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi > > _______________________________________________ Boost-mpi mailing list [email protected] https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi
