Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] 1.7.x support statement

2013-10-07 Thread Ralph Castain
Done On Oct 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, "Barrett, Brian W" wrote: > Yes; Jeff was saying that it was currently listed as supported and we > probably should move it to lightly tested (and I was agreeing, although > without typing much). > > Brian > > On 10/6/13 10:35 PM, "Ralph

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] 1.7.x support statement

2013-10-07 Thread Barrett, Brian W
Yes; Jeff was saying that it was currently listed as supported and we probably should move it to lightly tested (and I was agreeing, although without typing much). Brian On 10/6/13 10:35 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote: >I guess I don't understand your example - shouldn't all the

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] 1.7.x support statement

2013-10-07 Thread Ralph Castain
I guess I don't understand your example - shouldn't all the Solaris support be in the lightly tested category? I see only the 32-bit Solaris entry, with everything else still shown in the "full" category On Oct 6, 2013, at 7:22 PM, "Barrett, Brian W" wrote: > I agree with

Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] 1.7.x support statement

2013-10-06 Thread Barrett, Brian W
I agree with the Solaris move. Brian On 10/4/13 5:08 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" wrote: >This is in the README -- is it still accurate? I'm thinking that all >Solaris support should move to the "lightly but not fully tested" >category, for example: > >- >- Systems