On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:22 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>> I agree with Jeff's comments about the BTL_ERROR. How about a middle ground here? We let the BTLs use BTL_ERROR, eventually with some modifications, and we redirect the BTL_ERROR to a more advanced macro including support for orte_show_help? This will require going over all the BTLs, but on the bright side it will give us a 100% consistency on retorting errors.
>> Sounds reasonable to me - I'm happy to help do it, assuming Jeff also concurs. I assume we would then replace all the show_help calls as well? Otherwise, I'm not sure what we gain as the direct orte_show_help dependency will remain. Or are those calls too specialized to be replaced with BTL_ERROR?
> Should this kind of thing wait for OPAL_SOS?
> (I mention this because the OPAL_SOS RFC will be sent to devel Real Soon Now...)
Sure - OPAL_SOS will supersede all this anyway.
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to:
> devel mailing list