From our perspective, it would be good if it could default to the old
behavior (in 1.3 if possible).
On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> I don't think there was any overt thought given to it, at least not
> on my part. I suspect it came about because (a) the wiki defining
> hostfile behavior made no mention of the default value, (b) I may
> have overlooked the prior default when rewriting that code, and (c)
> since we now have default-hostfile as well as hostfile, it could be
> I didn't default the name since it isn't clear which one should get
> the default.
> I honestly don't remember - this has been in the code base for a
> really long time now.
> I have no iron in this fire - as you know, all of our environs here
> are managed. So I guess I'll throw it out there to the community:
> do we want --default-hostfile to have a default value?
> Pros: it could be considered a continuation of 1.2's hostfile behavior
> Cons: we treat hostfile in a totally different way in 1.3. We now
> have two hostfiles: a default that applies to all app_contexts, and
> a hostfile that applies to only one app_context. It would seem that
> the default-hostfile best aligns with the old "hostfile" behavior,
> but could lead to some confusion in its new usage.
> Any preferences/thoughts?
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
>> In 1.2.x, the rds_hostfile_path parameter pointed to openmpi-
>> default-hostfile by default. This parameter has been replaced with
>> orte_default_hostfile in 1.3, but now it defaults to <none>. Was
>> there any particular reason for the default value to change?
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list