+1 On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:33:36PM +0000, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > To slightly expand on what Howard said: > > We'd basically fix ABI at the beginning of a stable series (i.e., 2.0.0), and > maintain it for the entire stable series. > > The rationale here is that the adoption we've seen is that production shops > are (rightfully) just moving from stable series to stable series -- they're > skipping the feature series. Meaning: ABI guarantees for the feature series > don't seem that important. So why hamstring ourselves? Delay making final > ABI decisions until the stable series. > > > On Dec 18, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Howard Pritchard <hpprit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Folks, > > > > Jeff and I have been considering changing the ABI compatibility store fory > > Open MPI for the 1.9/2.0 release stream. Basically no promises for the > > odd/feature release series, but keep the current ABI promise for the > > even release series. > > > > I've updated the 1.9/2.0 release page on the wiki to include this proposal. > > > > Please let us know if you think that it might be problematic to relax > > the ABI compatibility promise in the features release series. > > > > This will be on the agenda for the developers' workshop next month. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Howard > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/2014/12/16670.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/2014/12/16672.php
pgp_K2fDhqZLr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
