hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 7
ork on the parts they are interested in. If we decided to perform the split, I would hope that this process will not negatively influence any of our users and that the community we have built over the years will evolve further in the future. The mutual and overall benefits will hopefully outweigh the additional work we will have to invest. Also, in this case I would be in favor of creating three sub-projects: hpx-core, hpx-parallelism, and hpx-distributed. Thanks! Regards Hartmut --- <https://stellar.cct.lsu.edu> https://stellar.cct.lsu.edu <https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx> https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx From: hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org On Behalf Of Simberg Mikael Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 2:53 PM To: hpx-us...@stellar-group.org; hpx-devel@stellar-group.org Subject: [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller projects and repositories Dear HPX users and developers, The HPX users and developers at CSCS (that includes myself) have expressed an interest in separating the local-only and distributed functionality of HPX into two separate projects and repositories. This is a contentious topic, so before we do a large change like this we want to consult the community through a vote. My personal vote and motivation for the change will follow in a separate message. Practically speaking, the proposal is to move the on-node functionality of HPX (this includes futures, algorithms, basic CUDA/HIP support, a local-only runtime, and all the utilities required to support this) into a separate repository. The remaining distributed functionality of HPX would keep the hpx name, stay in the current repository, and it would gain one new dependency, called (e.g.) hpx-local. Releases of hpx and hpx-local would often be done together, but could be done independently of each other. The aim is to affect current users of distributed features of HPX as little as possible, while giving users of local-only features a project that, by default, gives them only local functionality. If there's consensus to go ahead with a split, we will also consider splitting HPX into more than two projects. Voting works as follows (from <https://hpx.stellar-group.org/governance/> https://hpx.stellar-group.org/governance/): If a formal vote on a proposal is called (signaled simply by sending a email with [VOTE] in the subject line), all participants on the HPX user's mailing list may express an opinion and vote. They do this by sending an email in reply to the original [VOTE] email, with the following vote and information: - +1: 'yes', 'agree': also willing to help bring about the proposed action - +0: 'yes', 'agree': not willing or able to help bring about the proposed action - -0: 'no', 'disagree': but will not oppose the action's going forward - -1: 'no', 'disagree': opposes the action's going forward and must propose an alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for not addressing the issue) This is a "Concensus approval" vote (see governance document for details). Responses from developers and users alike are encouraged. Please vote as soon as possible, but we will leave the voting open until Thursday 17th June. Kind regards, Mikael Simberg -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.cct.lsu.edu/pipermail/hpx-devel/attachments/20210616/60b1b08c/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:41:22 -0500 From: Parsa Amini Subject: Re: [hpx-devel] [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller projects and repositories To: hpx-us...@stellar-group.org Cc: "hpx-devel@stellar-group.org" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" - -1: ?no,? ?disagree?. > justification for not addressing the issue Separating the fundamental distributed and local-only functionalities of HPX compromises the project's integrity over time, if not rapidly, for the obvious reason that there will not be enough motivation to keep both in working co simultaneously. This will exacerbate if they are maintained in separate repositories but is still a problem even if they are maintained in the same repository (e.g., HPX support for Vc, HPX examples repository, MiniGhost, HPXCL). That this interest exists is understandable because our excellent collaborators at the CSCS have had to invest significant time and resources to maintain the distributed functionalities of HPX, which, at least in the short term, has not been sufficiently rewarding. On the other hand, the problem will be the opposite if the distributed functionalities become the focus, which will not be ideal either. Sincerely, Parsa Amini On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Simberg Mikael wrote: > Dear HPX users and developers, > > The HPX users and developers at CSCS (that includes myself) have expressed >
hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 10
ur teams have. It is determined by > whether we are able to find mutually acceptable compromises and go ahead > together. I'm willing to contribute my share of compromises and would > expect so from the CSCS team as well. > > > > > > Finally, my vote: while from a distance and based on LSU's interests I > should clearly vote -1, I will not oppose the proposal and will help with > it's implementation ? if the community wishes to go for it. However, I > would prefer leaving everything in one repository and rather help creating > a build system infrastructure (and related tooling) that allows for > developers to only work on the parts they are interested in. > > > > If we decided to perform the split, I would hope that this process will > not negatively influence any of our users and that the community we have > built over the years will evolve further in the future. The mutual and > overall benefits will hopefully outweigh the additional work we will have > to invest. > > > > Also, in this case I would be in favor of creating three sub-projects: > hpx-core, hpx-parallelism, and hpx-distributed. > > > > Thanks! > > Regards Hartmut > > --- > > https://stellar.cct.lsu.edu > > https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx > > > > *From:* hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org < > hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org> *On Behalf Of *Simberg Mikael > *Sent:* Monday, June 7, 2021 2:53 PM > *To:* hpx-us...@stellar-group.org; hpx-devel@stellar-group.org > *Subject:* [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two > smaller projects and repositories > > > > Dear HPX users and developers, > > > The HPX users and developers at CSCS (that includes myself) have expressed > an interest in separating the local-only and distributed functionality of > HPX into two separate projects and repositories. This is a contentious > topic, so before we do a large change like this we want to consult the > community through a vote. My personal vote and motivation for the change > will follow in a separate message. > > > Practically speaking, the proposal is to move the on-node functionality of > HPX (this includes futures, algorithms, basic CUDA/HIP support, a > local-only runtime, and all the utilities required to support this) into a > separate repository. The remaining distributed functionality of HPX would > keep the hpx name, stay in the current repository, and it would gain one > new dependency, called (e.g.) hpx-local. Releases of hpx and hpx-local > would often be done together, but could be done independently of each > other. The aim is to affect current users of distributed features of HPX > as little as possible, while giving users of local-only features a project > that, by default, gives them only local functionality. If there's consensus > to go ahead with a split, we will also consider splitting HPX into more > than two projects. > > > Voting works as follows (from https://hpx.stellar-group.org/governance/): > > If a formal vote on a proposal is called (signaled simply by sending a > email with [VOTE] in the subject line), all participants on the HPX user?s > mailing list may express an opinion and vote. They do this by sending an > email in reply to the original [VOTE] email, with the following vote and > information: > > > - +1: ?yes?, ?agree?: also willing to help bring about the proposed action > - +0: ?yes?, ?agree?: not willing or able to help bring about the proposed > action > - -0: ?no?, ?disagree?: but will not oppose the action?s going forward > - -1: ?no?, ?disagree?: opposes the action?s going forward and must > propose an alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for > not addressing the issue) > > This is a "Concensus approval" vote (see governance document for details). > Responses from developers and *users* alike are encouraged. Please vote > as soon as possible, but we will leave the voting open until Thursday 17th > June. > > > > Kind regards, > > Mikael Simberg > ___ > hpx-devel mailing list > hpx-devel@stellar-group.org > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-devel > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.cct.lsu.edu/pipermail/hpx-devel/attachments/20210616/503ac611/attachment.html -- ___ hpx-devel mailing list hpx-devel@stellar-group.org https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-devel End of hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 10 *
hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 9
of HPX (this includes futures, algorithms, basic CUDA/HIP support, a local-only runtime, and all the utilities required to support this) into a separate repository. The remaining distributed functionality of HPX would keep the hpx name, stay in the current repository, and it would gain one new dependency, called (e.g.) hpx-local. Releases of hpx and hpx-local would often be done together, but could be done independently of each other. The aim is to affect current users of distributed features of HPX as little as possible, while giving users of local-only features a project that, by default, gives them only local functionality. If there's consensus to go ahead with a split, we will also consider splitting HPX into more than two projects. Voting works as follows (from https://hpx.stellar-group.org/governance/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhpx.stellar-group.org%2Fgovernance%2F=04%7C01%7Cwnanmi1%40lsu.edu%7Ca2a00a2e9a024dc7c51308d930d366dd%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637594506829428151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=HuZxqzfPL5Ty4ddSzM4dhQ85kGvzuap3QqFLJunvRdY%3D=0>): If a formal vote on a proposal is called (signaled simply by sending a email with [VOTE] in the subject line), all participants on the HPX user?s mailing list may express an opinion and vote. They do this by sending an email in reply to the original [VOTE] email, with the following vote and information: - +1: ?yes?, ?agree?: also willing to help bring about the proposed action - +0: ?yes?, ?agree?: not willing or able to help bring about the proposed action - -0: ?no?, ?disagree?: but will not oppose the action?s going forward - -1: ?no?, ?disagree?: opposes the action?s going forward and must propose an alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for not addressing the issue) This is a "Concensus approval" vote (see governance document for details). Responses from developers and users alike are encouraged. Please vote as soon as possible, but we will leave the voting open until Thursday 17th June. Kind regards, Mikael Simberg ___ hpx-users mailing list hpx-us...@stellar-group.org<mailto:hpx-us...@stellar-group.org> https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.cct.lsu.edu/pipermail/hpx-devel/attachments/20210616/55524d69/attachment.html -- ___ hpx-devel mailing list hpx-devel@stellar-group.org https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-devel End of hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 9
hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 8
ipants on the HPX user?s mailing list may express an opinion and vote. They do this by sending an email in reply to the original [VOTE] email, with the following vote and information: - +1: ?yes?, ?agree?: also willing to help bring about the proposed action - +0: ?yes?, ?agree?: not willing or able to help bring about the proposed action - -0: ?no?, ?disagree?: but will not oppose the action?s going forward - -1: ?no?, ?disagree?: opposes the action?s going forward and must propose an alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for not addressing the issue) This is a "Concensus approval" vote (see governance document for details). Responses from developers and users alike are encouraged. Please vote as soon as possible, but we will leave the voting open until Thursday 17th June. Kind regards, Mikael Simberg ___ hpx-users mailing list hpx-us...@stellar-group.org<mailto:hpx-us...@stellar-group.org> https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.cct.lsu.edu/pipermail/hpx-devel/attachments/20210616/0d963583/attachment.html -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:31:08 + From: Weile Wei Subject: Re: [hpx-devel] [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller projects and repositories To: "hpx-us...@stellar-group.org" Cc: "hpx-devel@stellar-group.org" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" - -1: ?no,? ?disagree?. I believe splitting the HPX to local and distributed cases will impact the test coverage, which is fundamentally important to a scalable software project. More importantly, HPX has good record on maintain similar APIs for local and distributed cases; with such split, it might be difficult to spot bugs, if any. Best, Weile From: hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org on behalf of Bita Hasheminezhad Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 9:21 AM To: hpx-us...@stellar-group.org Cc: hpx-devel@stellar-group.org Subject: Re: [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller projects and repositories --1, My justification for not addressing the issue: I think developing projects on top of HPX would become extremely difficult. The goal for that software is probably to benefit all aspects of what HPX provides. HPX's idea of providing a stable semantic-C++ local and distributed parallel functionalities and having a successful history of achieving that are its essential features and what differentiates HPX from other not-so-successful projects. Regards, Bita Get Outlook for iOS<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef=04%7C01%7Cwwei9%40lsu.edu%7C1d0321d6a8884fa600b708d930d20bf3%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637594500987006791%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=BeQ5Wu5vHZH%2BSS5PUucJlU1L6v5o4oudVWJNSrQl7xI%3D=0> From: hpx-users-boun...@stellar-group.org on behalf of Parsa Amini Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 8:41:22 AM To: hpx-us...@stellar-group.org Cc: hpx-devel@stellar-group.org Subject: Re: [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller projects and repositories - -1: ?no,? ?disagree?. > justification for not addressing the issue Separating the fundamental distributed and local-only functionalities of HPX compromises the project's integrity over time, if not rapidly, for the obvious reason that there will not be enough motivation to keep both in working co simultaneously. This will exacerbate if they are maintained in separate repositories but is still a problem even if they are maintained in the same repository (e.g., HPX support for Vc, HPX examples repository, MiniGhost, HPXCL). That this interest exists is understandable because our excellent collaborators at the CSCS have had to invest significant time and resources to maintain the distributed functionalities of HPX, which, at least in the short term, has not been sufficiently rewarding. On the other hand, the problem will be the opposite if the distributed functionalities become the focus, which will not be ideal either. Sincerely, Parsa Amini On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Simberg Mikael mailto:mikael.simb...@cscs.ch>> wrote: Dear HPX users and developers, The HPX users and developers at CSCS (that includes myself) have expressed an interest in separating the local-only and distributed functionality of HPX into two separate projects and repositories. This is a contentious topic, so before we do a large change like this we want to consult the community through a vote. My personal vote and motivation for the change will follow in a separate message. Practically speaking, the proposal is to move th
hpx-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 11
at there will not be enough motivation to keep both in > working co simultaneously. This will exacerbate if they are maintained in > separate repositories but is still a problem even if they are maintained in > the same repository (e.g., HPX support for Vc, HPX examples repository, > MiniGhost, HPXCL). > > That this interest exists is understandable because our excellent > collaborators at the CSCS have had to invest significant time and resources > to maintain the distributed functionalities of HPX, which, at least in the > short term, has not been sufficiently rewarding. On the other hand, the > problem will be the opposite if the distributed functionalities become the > focus, which will not be ideal either. > > > > Sincerely, > > Parsa Amini > > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Simberg Mikael > wrote: > > Dear HPX users and developers, > > > The HPX users and developers at CSCS (that includes myself) have expressed > an interest in separating the local-only and distributed functionality of > HPX into two separate projects and repositories. This is a contentious > topic, so before we do a large change like this we want to consult the > community through a vote. My personal vote and motivation for the change > will follow in a separate message. > > > Practically speaking, the proposal is to move the on-node functionality of > HPX (this includes futures, algorithms, basic CUDA/HIP support, a > local-only runtime, and all the utilities required to support this) into a > separate repository. The remaining distributed functionality of HPX would > keep the hpx name, stay in the current repository, and it would gain one > new dependency, called (e.g.) hpx-local. Releases of hpx and hpx-local > would often be done together, but could be done independently of each > other. The aim is to affect current users of distributed features of HPX > as little as possible, while giving users of local-only features a project > that, by default, gives them only local functionality. If there's consensus > to go ahead with a split, we will also consider splitting HPX into more > than two projects. > > > Voting works as follows (from https://hpx.stellar-group.org/governance/ > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhpx.stellar-group.org%2Fgovernance%2F=04%7C01%7Cwnanmi1%40lsu.edu%7Ca2a00a2e9a024dc7c51308d930d366dd%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637594506829428151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=HuZxqzfPL5Ty4ddSzM4dhQ85kGvzuap3QqFLJunvRdY%3D=0> > ): > > If a formal vote on a proposal is called (signaled simply by sending a > email with [VOTE] in the subject line), all participants on the HPX user?s > mailing list may express an opinion and vote. They do this by sending an > email in reply to the original [VOTE] email, with the following vote and > information: > > > - +1: ?yes?, ?agree?: also willing to help bring about the proposed action > - +0: ?yes?, ?agree?: not willing or able to help bring about the proposed > action > - -0: ?no?, ?disagree?: but will not oppose the action?s going forward > - -1: ?no?, ?disagree?: opposes the action?s going forward and must > propose an alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for > not addressing the issue) > > This is a "Concensus approval" vote (see governance document for details). > Responses from developers and *users* alike are encouraged. Please vote > as soon as possible, but we will leave the voting open until Thursday 17th > June. > > > > Kind regards, > > Mikael Simberg > > ___ > hpx-users mailing list > hpx-us...@stellar-group.org > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users > > ___ > hpx-users mailing list > hpx-us...@stellar-group.org > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.cct.lsu.edu/pipermail/hpx-devel/attachments/20210616/5f617b8d/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:28:24 +0200 From: Gregor Daiss Subject: Re: [hpx-devel] [hpx-users] [VOTE] Proposal to split HPX into at least two smaller projects and repositories To: hpx-us...@stellar-group.org Cc: hpx-devel@stellar-group.org Message-ID: <20210616232824.yr7pmgegcl6ryhq5@gnotebook> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed I vote +1 in favor of the split. I was a bit torn between the two options, but overall I came to the conclusion that I prefer several smaller sub-projects over a large monolithic one. In addition to the points Mikael alre
