HI Gilles,
First a disclaimer - I do not know what the intended design was nor where
the design document
for this feature is located.
However, I would certainly prefer that if the communicator size wasn't
specifically specified
in the rule file, a fall back do-no-harm algorithm would be selected.
Folks,
this is a follow-up of a discussion on the user ML started at
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/05/26882.php
1) it turns out the dynamic rule filename must be "sorted" :
- rules must be sorted by communicator size
- within a given communicator size, rules must be sorted
I think that now that we have several months of git/github under our belts, it
seems like a natural topic to have in the upcoming face-to-face meeting of:
how's it going? What's going well / not well? What can we improve on?
Let's have this conversation then.
> On May 19, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Ra
On May 19, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> No thx 😉
>
> I would rather not create code czars
Hence my "half version" alternative suggestion.
-Dave
No thx 😉
I would rather not create code czars
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 19, 2015, at 12:11 PM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell)
> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
>> Our pr tests aren't good enough for what you propose
>
> I made no claim about whether PRs even
On May 19, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Our pr tests aren't good enough for what you propose
I made no claim about whether PRs even needed automated testing in order to
switch to this scheme. Right now I could push any old garbage I want into the
master directly without ever usin
Our pr tests aren't good enough for what you propose
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 19, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell)
> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 2015, at 5:08 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 18, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Mark Santcroos
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What I didn
On May 19, 2015, at 5:08 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> On May 18, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Mark Santcroos
> wrote:
>
>> What I didn't see in the doc, will you continue to work with two repo's or
>> will that change too?
>> (I found that confusing as a newcomer)
>
> Unfortunately, yes, we wil
On May 18, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Mark Santcroos wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing this to the wider community.
>
> I hope this will eventually address my main concern: the relatively old
> versions that get deployed on HPC systems around the world, which I assume
> is/was because of the "odd ;-)" num
