It sounds like this is worth larger discussion; a phone chat would
probably be the quickest way to resolve whether this is the tip of the
iceberg (which I think is what Ralph's concern is) or this one change
is really all that's needed (although Ralph indicated that it didn't
seem to be in
Since we're doing v1.2.8 (was decided on the teleconf yesterday, if
you weren't there), I added a 1.2.8 milestone in trac, and a 1.2.7
version.
We got another minor bug report from TotalViewTechnologies that should
go into 1.2.8; Ralph just submitted CMR #1529 with a fix.
--
Jeff Squyres
Just as an FYI: I'll add a cmr with a 1.2-specific patch for this
problem. The change in 1529 doesn't directly apply to the 1.2 branch
On Sep 24, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Since we're doing v1.2.8 (was decided on the teleconf yesterday, if
you weren't there), I added a 1.2.8 mil
For the NEWS: I don't think this was a regression. Did we really have
those casts initially and remove them in v1.2.6? I thought Brad said
they only first *noticed* it in v1.2.6 -- I don't know where the
change actually came from (it could actually be in the hardware or the
driver reporti
Ok, regression might not technically be the right word, but from a user's
perspective, it would seem like it.
That is, if I understand the implications of the bug that was fixed in 1.2.6 via
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/17883
Since, prior to that fix, the IBM eHCA got lucky and wor
Ah! You are completely correct, sir... we *did* change that field in
1.2.6, and therefore it technically is a regression.
So I stand corrected...
On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Tim Mattox wrote:
Ok, regression might not technically be the right word, but from a
user's
perspective, it would
