Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Bring the lastest ROMIO version from MPICH2-1.3 into the trunk
From: Pascal Deveze (Pascal.Deveze_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-17 04:36:49


Pascal Deveze a écrit :
> Jeff Squyres a écrit :
>> I'm actually confused by the changelog on the repo:
>>
>> - r1 (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi) says "Initial import from branch v1.5"
>> - r15 (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi/changeset/a535d7cdbe79) then says "Update with openmpi-1.4.3"
>>
>> ...?
>>
> I thought it was necessary to be in line with a "stable version", not
> with a snapshot of the trunk.
>
>> Did you not use the SVN+HG procedure outlined below, perchance?
>>
>> https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/wiki/UsingMercurial
>>
> No, I did not use this procedure:
> I cloned new-romio-for-openmpi, then I deleted all files and
> subdirectories (excepted .hg and .hgignore)
>
> I got openmpi-1.4.3.tar and untar it in the new-romio-for-openmpi
> directory.
> Then I replace the romio branch by the romio branch from
> new-romio-for-openmpi
>
> After testing, I committed and pushed it in bitbucket.
>
> I realize now that I have to go back to v1.5.
> What is the best way to do it ?
> - Synchro with the trunk?
> - Using openmpi-1.5.tar.gz with the same procedure I used to
> update with openmpi-1.4.3 ?
>
> .
Sorry,
  I was a bit confused with V1.5. I will have to synchronize with the
trunk. When do you think is the best time to do it ?

>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just (re?)noticed that your mercurial tree is based on the 1.4 branch:
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi
>>>
>>> Are we targeting the v1.4 series for this?
>>>
>>> I thought we were targeting trunk/v1.5 for the new ROMIO, but perhaps I'm forgetting something...?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jeff Squyres a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Great!
>>>>>
>>>>> I see in your other mail that you pulled something from MPICH2 to make this work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean that there's a even-newer version of ROMIO that we should pull in its entirety? It's a little risky to pull most stuff from one released version of ROMIO and then more stuff from another released version. Meaning: it's little nicer/safer to say that we have ROMIO from a single released version of MPICH2.
>>>>> If possible. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't get me wrong -- I want the new ROMIO, and I'm sorry you've had to go through so many hoops to get it ready. :-( But we should do it the best way we can; we have history/precedent for taking ROMIO from a single source/released version of MPICH[2], and I'd like to maintain that precedent if at all possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I've just made a comparison with the very last MPICH2 version (mpich2-1.3.1) and found very little differencies.
>>>>
>>>> I've reported them into bitbucket. I 've tested with the ROMIO tests and I 've commited them.
>>>>
>>>> So, we now have on bitbucket the version from mpich2-1.3.1 plus the patch for the attribute issue.
>>>>
>>>> Pascal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devel mailing list
>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeff Squyres
>>> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>>> For corporate legal information go to:
>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel