Terry, Rich and I talked about this a little bit in Chicago at the Forum meeting.
It's not yet clear what is the Right direction to go here. We certainly don't want to go another 8 months before releasing 1.5.1. On Oct 11, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > Why go to all this effort, and not just fork 1.7 from the trunk, skipping the > whole merge process ? Seems like it would be much more prudent to spend > time on improving the code base, adding missing MPI support, etc., rather > than spending the time on a merge. > > Rich > > > On 10/8/10 6:34 PM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > >> I have no problem with that, but remember that it will create an ABI break >> for any third-party plugin developer. >> >> As long as we are comfortable doing that, or create the >> backward-compatibility we discussed, then this plan is fine by me. > > Yes, we will definitely have to make sure we don't break backwards > compatibility: > > - MPI API > - the symbol / filename changes we did for MCA > > I don't think anything else matters, right? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
