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
>> 1.3.1...
>>
>> 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().
>>
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}