I don't think there was any overt thought given to it, at least not on
my part. I suspect it came about because (a) the wiki defining
hostfile behavior made no mention of the default value, (b) I may have
overlooked the prior default when rewriting that code, and (c) since
we now have default-hostfile as well as hostfile, it could be I didn't
default the name since it isn't clear which one should get the default.
I honestly don't remember - this has been in the code base for a
really long time now.
I have no iron in this fire - as you know, all of our environs here
are managed. So I guess I'll throw it out there to the community:
do we want --default-hostfile to have a default value?
Pros: it could be considered a continuation of 1.2's hostfile behavior
Cons: we treat hostfile in a totally different way in 1.3. We now have
two hostfiles: a default that applies to all app_contexts, and a
hostfile that applies to only one app_context. It would seem that the
default-hostfile best aligns with the old "hostfile" behavior, but
could lead to some confusion in its new usage.
On Dec 5, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
> In 1.2.x, the rds_hostfile_path parameter pointed to openmpi-default-
> hostfile by default. This parameter has been replaced with
> orte_default_hostfile in 1.3, but now it defaults to <none>. Was
> there any particular reason for the default value to change?
> devel mailing list