Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Fwd: OpenMPI changes
From: Greg Watson (g.watson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-05 13:50:15

On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
>> I certainly don't (nor anyone in PTP as far as I know) have the
>> resources to re-add functionality to OMPI, so unfortunately it
>> appears
>> that 1.2 will be the end of the line for PTP supported versions. As I
>> mentioned to Ralph, I don't follow your developer discussions closely
>> enough to understand the details of every change that is proposed.
> I can understand that.
> But please also appreciate our point of view: we put out public
> notices saying that interface changes were going to occur and
> specifically, deliberately asked if anyone cared. IBM did not say
> "stop!!". If no one says anything, how are we to know that what we're
> doing is going to adversely affect anyone?

Looking back through the mailing list, I can only see two references
that seem relevant to this. One was titled "Major reduction in ORTE"
and does allude to the event model changes. The other "OMPI/ORTE and
tools" talks about "alternative methods of interaction". Neither
mentions changes to the spawning and I/O forwarding functionality
(that I can see), or that this would be the exclusive mechanism for
interaction. In the future (assuming there are more changes), it would
be helpful if there was at least some information about what specific
API's are being removed.

BTW, IBM is simply a stakeholder in PTP. It's not up to IBM to make
this decision.