Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework
From: Thomas Naughton (naughtont_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-29 10:26:23


Thanks Jeff, I think that was a pretty good summary of things.

> Thomas indicated there was no rush on the RFC; perhaps we can
> discuss this next-next-Tuesday (June 10)?

Phone discussion seems like a good idea and June 10 sounds good to me.


   Thomas Naughton naughtont_at_[hidden]
   Research Associate (865) 576-4184

On Thu, 29 May 2014, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:

> I refrained from speaking up on this thread because I was on travel, and I wanted to think a bit more about this before I said anything.
> Let me try to summarize the arguments that have been made so far...
> A. Things people seem to agree on:
> 1. Inclusion in trunk has no correlation to being included in a release
> 2. Prior examples of (effectively) single-organization components
> B. Reasons to have STCI/HPX/etc. components in SVN trunk:
> 1. Multiple organizations are asking (ORNL, UTK, UH)
> 2. Easier to develop/merge the STCI/HPX/etc. components over time
> 3. Find all alternate RTE components in one place (vs. multiple internet repos)
> 4. More examples of how to use the RTE framework
> C. Reasons not to have STCI/HPX/etc. components in the SVN trunk:
> 1. What is the (technical) gain is for being in the trunk?
> 2. Concerns about external release schedule pressure
> 3. Why have something on the trunk if it's not eventually destined for a release?
> In particular, I think B2 and C1 seem to be in conflict with each other.
> I have several thoughts about this topic, but I'm hesitant to continue this already lengthy thread on a contentious topic. I also don't want to spend the next 30 minutes writing a lengthy, carefully-worded email that will just spawn further lengthy, carefully-worded emails (each costing 15-30 minutes). Prior history has shown that we discuss and resolve issues much more rationally on the phone (vs. email hell).
> I would therefore like to discuss this on a weekly Tuesday call.
> Next week is bad because it's the MPI Forum meeting; I suspect that some -- but not all -- of us will not be on the Tuesday call because we'll be at the Forum.
> Thomas indicated there was no rush on the RFC; perhaps we can discuss this next-next-Tuesday (June 10)?
> On May 27, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Thomas Naughton <naughtont_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> WHAT: add new component to ompi/rte framework
>> WHY: because it will simplify our maintenance & provide an alt. reference
>> WHEN: no rush, soon-ish? (June 12?)
>> This is a component we currently maintain outside of the ompi tree to
>> support using OMPI with an alternate runtime system. This will also
>> provide an alternate component to ORTE, which was motivation for PMI
>> component in related RFC. We build/test nightly and it occasionally
>> catches ompi-rte abstraction violations, etc.
>> Thomas
>> _________________________________________________________________________
>> Thomas Naughton naughtont_at_[hidden]
>> Research Associate (865) 576-4184
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription:
>> Link to this post:
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> For corporate legal information go to:
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> Subscription:
> Link to this post: