On 5/12/08 3:49 PM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Sorry it took so long for a reply; Ralph and I were working on this
> code much of the day in an attempt to have it all complete / tidied up
> for the teleconf tomorrow.
> On May 12, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Josh Hursey 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-
>>> 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
> Fair enough, will do.
> Since this one was kinda weird, do you want an after-the-fact RFC, or
> a page on the wiki? I'm partial to the latter; it'll be more durable.
>>> 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
>> 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.
> That's perfectly reasonable. In short: s/opal_show_help/
> orte_show_help/ in the ORTE and OMPI layers, and you're done (which we
> already did throughout the code base). Use orte_show_help in the ORTE
> and OMPI layers in the future. I think this information should go on
> the wiki.
Just to complete that, you also should:
throughout ORTE and OMPI layers in the future.
This has also been done in the current code base.
> Finally, per a conversation that I had with Terry earlier today, I
> added a new MCA parameter that will turn off the show_help message
> aggregation. It defaults to aggregation enabled, but you can disable
> it with:
> ... --mca orte_base_help_aggregation 0 ...
> This will show *all* show_help messages, regardless of duplication.
> Terry was worried that aggregating the same (filename, tuple) messages
> may actually mask different errors because we allow %s expansion in
> the message.
> Re-examining George's mail in this thread, I think he may have had
> similar concerns, but I didn't grok that at the time.