hi all,
I'm pretty surprised that I fully agree with Fotis for once :-) :-)
the shock had me keep this in the fridge for 8 days... (joking, of course)
On 4 June 2014 00:05, Fotis Georgatos <[email protected]> wrote:
IMHO, the basic issue of the current versioning scheme is that, it requires
at least some prior EB knowledge to extract useful information out of it.
Indeed! And we cannot require this knowledge from all the users...
i don't count myself as average user, but even i don't know what ictce
5.5.0 means. luckily, module show tells me
maybe we need a tool/option similar to module av that shows the module
names and one line description?
i'm not saying that the versioning couldn't reflect something better,
like the ictce toolchain could be called intel-<icc major>.arbitrary
.garbage or something like that, but i'm usnsure a module versioing will
fix the real issue.
it would be better that site admins symlink a set of toolchain+version
to something human readable for the users, rather then to try to come up
with the perfect naming and versioning scheme.
My own wish is, that new users would be able to automatically extract
information
about a toolchain version, without prior knowledge about EB (and our
discussions ;-)
+1
module show, but human readable instead of deriving the versions your
are looking for from the module load statements
On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Kenneth Hoste wrote:
How could you possible 'encode' 5-6 different software versions into a single
(sensible) version number without losing information?
I think we can all quickly agree that we can't:
+1
I would also add: do we really *need* lossless encoding here?
yes we do.
A toolchain version is just a tag name for a set of tools; if the
version name is descriptive and sensible for users, most people will
not need more information than that.
but EB needs to track everything excatly, so some absolute versioning
must exists.
stijn
One thing we will be doing across the different VSC (short for Flemish Supercomputer Centre) sites
in the Flanders region of Belgium is to use a scheme like "intel/2014a",
"intel/2014b" for (ictce) toolchains.
This may prove to be actually a quite attractive scheme for the end-users,
because it conveys information about when a toolchain was possibly "reviewed".
As long as users don't make assumptions about versions being latest and
greatest,
this may work nicely with HPC user communities, with reasonable expectations.
+1
Quite likely each site will support only a few selected toolchains.
Ciao,
R
--
Riccardo Murri
http://www.gc3.uzh.ch/people/rm
Grid Computing Competence Centre
University of Zurich
Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich (Switzerland)
Tel: +41 44 635 4222
Fax: +41 44 635 6888
