I would prefer to keep both names for a while and depricate them gradually. I suggest to release 1st drop with both namings and drop legacy right after that.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Barrett, Brian W <bwba...@sandia.gov>wrote: > I'm not sure what we gain by having them. It's a new (to us) product; > let's not support legacy names. > > Brian > > On 10/28/13 11:40 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > >Ah -- my mistake in the original post: I now see that it installs *both* > >shmemcc and oshcc (and friends). I didn't notice the osh* versions in my > >initial post. > > > >The question still remains, though -- do we still want these names > >installed: > > > >----- > >$ cd $prefix/bin > >$ ls -1 shmem* > >shmemcc@ > >shmemfort@ > >shmemrun@ > >----- > > > > > >On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Mike Dubman <mi...@dev.mellanox.co.il> > > wrote: > > > >> Thanks Brian, > >> The code in trunk already generates: > >> > >> oshcc oshfort oshmem_info oshrun > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwba...@sandia.gov> > >>wrote: > >> i thought I mentioned this before, but the compilers should be oshcc, > >>oshCC, and oshfort, with the starter named oshrun, according to Appendix > >>C of the spec. > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> -- > >> Brian W. Barrett > >> Scalable System Software Group > >> Sandia National Laboratories > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: devel [devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Jeff Squyres > >>(jsquyres) [jsquy...@cisco.com] > >> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:32 PM > >> To: Open MPI Developers > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OMPI devel] shmem vs. oshmem > >> > >> On Oct 25, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Igor Ivanov <igor.iva...@itseez.com> > >>wrote: > >> > >> >> - shmemcc / shmemfort / shmem_info / shmemrun > >> >> --> should these all be "oshmem*" ? > >> >> > >> >> - the examples are hello_shmem* and ring_shmem* > >> >> --> should these all be "*_oshmem*" ? > >> > These examples are not OpenSHMEM specific. > >> >> > >> >> - there are header files named shmem* > >> >> --> I'm guessing the names "shmem.h" and "shmem.fh" are mandated > >> > OpenSHMEM specification says > >> > >> So ya, those names are standardized -- no problem. > >> > >> But shouldn't we be branding everything else as oshmem? Even if the > >>examples are not oshmem-specific. > >> > >> We're shipping oshmem, not shmem, so why not call them oshmem examples > >>[that also happen to be shmem examples] -- rather than shmem examples > >>[that also happen to be oshmem examples]? > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >devel mailing list > >de...@open-mpi.org > >http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > > > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Scalable System Software Group > Sandia National Laboratories > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >
