Am 29.10.2010 um 18:47 schrieb Jeff Squyres:
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Reuti wrote:
>
>>> I'd have to go check 1.4.3 and 1.4.1 to be sure, but I would generally
>>> *NOT* assume that different versions like this are compatible.
>>
>> I'm getting confused, as these versions are exactly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I guess we will play it safe and upgrade every cluster at once so that
we won't get bad surprises.
thank you Jeff.
On 10/29/2010 06:40 PM, Reuti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 29.10.2010 um 18:27 schrieb Jeff Squyres:
>
>> I'd have to go check 1.4.3 and 1.4.1
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Reuti wrote:
>> I'd have to go check 1.4.3 and 1.4.1 to be sure, but I would generally *NOT*
>> assume that different versions like this are compatible.
>
> I'm getting confused, as these versions are exactly fitting "x.(y+1).*" which
> you mention below. So they
Hi,
Am 29.10.2010 um 18:27 schrieb Jeff Squyres:
> I'd have to go check 1.4.3 and 1.4.1 to be sure, but I would generally *NOT*
> assume that different versions like this are compatible.
I'm getting confused, as these versions are exactly fitting "x.(y+1).*" which
you mention below. So they
I'd have to go check 1.4.3 and 1.4.1 to be sure, but I would generally *NOT*
assume that different versions like this are compatible.
Open MPI makes an ABI promise (that started with version 1.3.2) that all the
releases in a given feature series and its corresponding super-stable series
(i.e.,