+1 I'm interested in hearing more. RTE is of interest. Josh
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > +1 for me! > > On May 29, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Thomas Naughton <naught...@ornl.gov> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Jeff, I think that was a pretty good summary of things. > > > >> Thomas indicated there was no rush on the RFC; perhaps we can discuss > this next-next-Tuesday (June 10)? > > > > Phone discussion seems like a good idea and June 10 sounds good to me. > > > > Thanks, > > --tjn > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Thomas Naughton naught...@ornl.gov > > Research Associate (865) 576-4184 > > > > > > On Thu, 29 May 2014, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > > > >> I refrained from speaking up on this thread because I was on travel, > and I wanted to think a bit more about this before I said anything. > >> > >> Let me try to summarize the arguments that have been made so far... > >> > >> A. Things people seem to agree on: > >> > >> 1. Inclusion in trunk has no correlation to being included in a release > >> 2. Prior examples of (effectively) single-organization components > >> > >> B. Reasons to have STCI/HPX/etc. components in SVN trunk: > >> > >> 1. Multiple organizations are asking (ORNL, UTK, UH) > >> 2. Easier to develop/merge the STCI/HPX/etc. components over time > >> 3. Find all alternate RTE components in one place (vs. multiple > internet repos) > >> 4. More examples of how to use the RTE framework > >> > >> C. Reasons not to have STCI/HPX/etc. components in the SVN trunk: > >> > >> 1. What is the (technical) gain is for being in the trunk? > >> 2. Concerns about external release schedule pressure > >> 3. Why have something on the trunk if it's not eventually destined for > a release? > >> > >> In particular, I think B2 and C1 seem to be in conflict with each other. > >> > >> I have several thoughts about this topic, but I'm hesitant to continue > this already lengthy thread on a contentious topic. I also don't want to > spend the next 30 minutes writing a lengthy, carefully-worded email that > will just spawn further lengthy, carefully-worded emails (each costing > 15-30 minutes). Prior history has shown that we discuss and resolve issues > much more rationally on the phone (vs. email hell). > >> > >> I would therefore like to discuss this on a weekly Tuesday call. > >> > >> Next week is bad because it's the MPI Forum meeting; I suspect that > some -- but not all -- of us will not be on the Tuesday call because we'll > be at the Forum. > >> > >> Thomas indicated there was no rush on the RFC; perhaps we can discuss > this next-next-Tuesday (June 10)? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On May 27, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Thomas Naughton <naught...@ornl.gov> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> WHAT: add new component to ompi/rte framework > >>> > >>> WHY: because it will simplify our maintenance & provide an alt. > reference > >>> > >>> WHEN: no rush, soon-ish? (June 12?) > >>> > >>> This is a component we currently maintain outside of the ompi tree to > >>> support using OMPI with an alternate runtime system. This will also > >>> provide an alternate component to ORTE, which was motivation for PMI > >>> component in related RFC. We build/test nightly and it occasionally > >>> catches ompi-rte abstraction violations, etc. > >>> > >>> Thomas > >>> > >>> > _________________________________________________________________________ > >>> Thomas Naughton > naught...@ornl.gov > >>> Research Associate (865) 576-4184 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> devel mailing list > >>> de...@open-mpi.org > >>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > >>> Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14852.php > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > >> Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14904.php > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > de...@open-mpi.org > > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14905.php > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14906.php >
