> 1. since nearly everyone is at SC08, and since next week is a holiday,
> the timing of this merge is poor. I would really urge that you delay
> it until at least Dec 5 so people actually know about it - and have
> time to even think about it
No problem, we can delay it. Dec 9th is the last choice for me to do it
before Christmas, otherwise it can only happen next year.
> 2. how does this fit into our overall release schedule? There was talk
> at one time (when we thought 1.3 was going out soon) about having a
> short release cycle to get Windows support out for 1.4. Now this is
> coming into the trunk even before 1.3 goes out.
> So is 1.3 going to have a lifecycle of a month? Or are we going to
> delay 1.3 (if it even needs to be delayed) so it can include this code?
> Reason I ask: last time we rolled Windows support into the system it
> created a complete code fork, making support for the current stable
> release nearly impossible. There generated a lot of unhappiness and
> argument within the community until we finally released a new version.
> From what I have seen as we've discussed things during devel, these
> are fairly well-contained changes. However, it -will- make maintaining
> 1.3 more difficult if people attempt to do it the old way - making
> changes in the trunk and patching across to 1.3. If we instead use
> isolated 1.3 branches for maintaining the code, then this isn't an issue.
I made a detailed diff in last email, most of the changes are in the new
added files and windows specific files, that won't go into 1.3. The rest
necessary changes are minor, but if they do make it difficult to
maintain 1.3, we can also consider a separate merge after 1.3. :-)
> Merits more thought than one week can provide.
> On Nov 20, 2008, at 6:53 AM, Tim Mattox wrote:
>> I have two concerns. First is that we really need to focus on
>> getting 1.3 stable and released. My second concern with
>> this is how will it effect merging of bugfixes for 1.3 from the
>> trunk once we release 1.3. Will the following modified files
>> cause merge conflicts for CMRs? How big is this diff,
>> can you send it to the list, or otherwise make it available?
>>> M ompi/runtime/ompi_mpi_init.c
>>> M opal/event/event.c
>>> M opal/event/WIN32-Code/win32.c
>>> M opal/mca/base/mca_base_param.c
>>> M opal/mca/installdirs/windows/opal_installdirs_windows.c
>>> M opal/runtime/opal_cr.c
>>> M opal/win32/ompi_misc.h
>>> M opal/win32/win_compat.h
>>> M orte/mca/plm/ccp/plm_ccp_component.c
>>> M orte/mca/plm/ccp/plm_ccp_module.c
>>> M orte/mca/plm/process/plm_process_module.c
>>> M orte/mca/ras/ccp/ras_ccp_component.c
>>> M orte/mca/ras/ccp/ras_ccp_module.c
>>> M orte/runtime/orte_wait.c
>>> M orte/tools/orterun/orterun.c
>>> M orte/util/hnp_contact.c
>> I would ask that you consider breaking these
>> modifications into parts that "could" be harmlessly
>> brought over independently to 1.3, if a subsequent
>> non-windows bugfix to one of those files needs to
>> be brought over that will only merge cleanly if some
>> of your changes to the same file are also brought over.
>> For example, it would be a real pain to have to use
>> patchfiles to resolve merge conflicts simply because
>> of an #ifdef or white-space change here or there.
>> Hopefully that made sense...
>> Although I don't use windows myself, I appreciate your
>> and others' efforts to expand the number of platforms
>> we can run on. Great work!
>> Tim Mattox, Ph.D. - http://homepage.mac.com/tmattox/
>> tmattox_at_[hidden] || timattox_at_[hidden]
>> I'm a bright... http://www.the-brights.net/
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list