On May 10, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Er, no. I thought the group had agreed to the main idea last Tuesday
> (framework for filtering output). We were racing against the time-to-
> branch clock and didn't take the time for an RFC after we agreed on
> the design. Do we need to?
I don't think so. But I'd just kinda like a more formal description of
what this fix is and it's implications on how the developers are
expected to use it going forward since this is altering the coding
standards.
>
>
> The side effect of eliminating duplicate error messages is new / was
> not discussed last Tuesday -- I can put out an RFC for that if you'd
> like, but the benefit is so obvious that I didn't think it would be
> controversial.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the benefit just that I'd like to
know what is expected of me as a developer after this change.
Not something to hold up the merge, just something I'd like to see.
Cheers,
Josh
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2008, at 8:48 PM, Josh Hursey wrote:
>
>> Is there a RFC telling us when we might expect this?
>>
>> On May 9, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>>> So when this stuff hits the trunk,
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}