There is another hidden danger here that has bitten us before -
namely, I challenge someone to remember that they fixed something last
week that (a) really does need to go over to 1.3, (b) hasn't already
done so, and (c) isn't now intertwined with someone else's interim fix
that they don't think should go over to 1.3 yet, if at all!
Good luck sorting it all out - I figure I'll just worry about making
the trunk work and leave the 1.3 transition issues to you brighter
minds. ;-)
On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Terry Dontje wrote:
Jeff Squyres wrote:
I think that this is exactly the problem -- when a developer puts
something back to the trunk, they (including me!) almost always
commit what they think is the fix to the problem. But hindsight is
20/20. Case in point: it took Ralph and me and others over a week
to fully fix the SM/paffinity issue, even though we thought at each
commit, "yep, that's it. This commit will fix the problem."
Looking back, we obviously missed some things during that process,
but we didn't realize that at the time, even though we were being
as careful as we could.
If I could be so bold -- I think that's what Terry was asking: how
are we supposed to know?
My $0.02: how to know "it really solves the problem without
introducing new ones" is a really, really hard determination. Even
for very small code changes. :-)
To beat this horse into the ground. A good example is the latest
performance regression due to the paffinity changes. If you were
testing on RH 5.1 you would not have found the problem. And I think
that is true with a lot of our changes in that we test on a limited
set of platforms locally so there is definitely a risk here.
So you can stand by the "Do the right thing" mantra but at the same
time we need to realize problems will happen and the only way to
reduce them is by shrinking the window of ambiguity.
--td
On Jul 24, 2008, at 10:44 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
Terry,
I did not and I will not enforce any policy at this point. I'm
confident developers in this community can take such decisions by
themselves, without restrictions from the RM. As a hint, the most
basic common sense (make sure it compile and it really solve the
problem it is supposed to solve without introducing new ones) is a
good decision metric.
george.
On Jul 24, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Terry Dontje wrote:
It might be worthwhile to spell out the conditions of when
someone should let changes soak or not. Considering your
changeset 19011 was putback without much soak time. I am not
saying 19011 needed more soak time just that I think it adds
potential confusion as to what one really needs to do versus
amount of code a change.
--td
George Bosilca wrote:
Unfortunately over the last couple of days I realize that the
patches from the trunk are moved to the 1.3 too rapidly and
usually without much testing. I would like to remember to
everybody that the 1.3, while opened for community commits, is
supposed to become stable at one point and that we should do the
best efforts to keep it that way as long as possible.
Please allows few days of testing time before moving your
patches from the trunk to the 1.3.
george.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
