Thanks. For my edification: are such trivial changes deserving of
RFCs? Perfect for RFCs? Good for RFCs while I'm still getting my feet
wet, but unnecessary once I get the hang of things?
1.4 was poor counting on my part: 1.3+1=1.4. The new math. I guess
actually 1.3+1=1.3.1. I'm fine with 1.3.1. It's a small, safe change.
The sooner the better. But, I'm open to expert opinion.
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Ditto; kill it.
> I marginally prefer 1.4 because it really doesn't affect anything in
> the now-more-or-less-static 1.3 series, right?
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:01 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>> Absolutely! Why wait until the 1.4 while we can have that in the
>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 16:39 , Eugene Loh wrote:
>>> I don't know what scope of changes require RFCs, but here's a
>>> trivial change.
>>> RFC: Eliminate opal_round_up_to_nearest_pow2().