Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

sounds good to me too. Edgar On 5/29/2014 10:04 AM, Joshua Ladd wrote: > +1 I'm interested in hearing more. RTE is of interest. > > Josh > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Ralph Castain > wrote: > > +1 for me! > > On May 29, 2014,

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

+1 I'm interested in hearing more. RTE is of interest. Josh On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > +1 for me! > > On May 29, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Thomas Naughton wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Jeff, I think that was a pretty good summary

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

+1 for me! On May 29, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Thomas Naughton 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

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

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

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

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

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

On May 27, 2014, at 2:28 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >>> That being said, I agree with Ralph on the fact that accepting them in >>> the trunk doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in any >>>

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >> That being said, I agree with Ralph on the fact that accepting them in >> the trunk doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in any >> further stable release. However, if ORNL setup nightly builds to >> validate

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

On May 27, 2014, at 1:50 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > From a practical perspective, I don't think there is a need for a > phone call. Ralph made his point, and we all took notice of it. > However, the proposed changes are in a single independent component, > with no impact

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

>From a practical perspective, I don't think there is a need for a phone call. Ralph made his point, and we all took notice of it. However, the proposed changes are in a single independent component, with no impact on the rest of the code base. Therefore, there is absolutely no valid reason not to

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

Sure, if its helpful I can join a call. --tjn _ Thomas Naughton naught...@ornl.gov Research Associate (865) 576-4184 On Tue, 27 May 2014, Ralph

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

Inline comments ... way at the bottom. ;-) --tjn _ Thomas Naughton naught...@ornl.gov Research Associate (865) 576-4184 On Tue, 27 May 2014,

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

not really, I stated my case, there is not much more to add. Its up to the group to decide, and I am fine with any decision. Edgar On 5/27/2014 2:57 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > Forgot to add: would it help to discuss this over the phone instead? > > > On May 27, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Ralph Castain

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

Forgot to add: would it help to discuss this over the phone instead? On May 27, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > > On May 27, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/27/2014 2:46 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >>> >>> On May 27,

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

On May 27, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote: > > > On 5/27/2014 2:46 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >> >> On May 27, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Edgar Gabriel >> wrote: >> >>> I'll let ORNL talk about the STCI component itself (which might >>> have additional

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

On 5/27/2014 2:46 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > > On May 27, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Edgar Gabriel > wrote: > >> I'll let ORNL talk about the STCI component itself (which might >> have additional reasons), but keeping the code in trunk vs. an >> outside github/mercurial repository

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

On May 27, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote: > I'll let ORNL talk about the STCI component itself (which might have > additional reasons), but keeping the code in trunk vs. an outside > github/mercurial repository has two advantages in my opinion: i) it > simplifies the

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

I'll let ORNL talk about the STCI component itself (which might have additional reasons), but keeping the code in trunk vs. an outside github/mercurial repository has two advantages in my opinion: i) it simplifies the propagation of know-how between the groups, and ii) avoids having to keep a

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

I think so long as we leave these components out of any release, there is a limited potential for problems (probably most importantly, we sidestep all the issues about syncing releases!). However, that said, I'm not sure what it gains anyone to include a component that *isn't* going in a

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

To through in my $0.02, I would see a benefit in adding the component to the trunk. As I mentioned in the last teleconf, we are currently working on adding support for the HPX runtime environment to Open MPI, and for various reasons (that I can explain if somebody is interested), we think at the

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

I have mixed thoughts on this request. We have a policy of only including things in the code base that are of general utility - i.e., that should be generally distributed across the community. This component is only applicable to ORNL, and it would therefore seem more sensible to have it

[OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework

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