Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

MPI-2.1 Change-Log: Version number modified to 2.1 #61

Closed
mpiforumbot opened this issue Jul 24, 2016 · 20 comments
Closed

MPI-2.1 Change-Log: Version number modified to 2.1 #61

mpiforumbot opened this issue Jul 24, 2016 · 20 comments
Assignees
@mpiforumbot
Labels
Correction to standard (for upcoming release) MPI 2.2 Text committed Ticket complete
Milestone
2009/06/08 Califo...

Comments

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mpiforumbot commented Jul 24, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Originally by RolfRabenseifner on 2008-12-11 06:43:28 -0600

Extended Scope

This MPI-2.2 entry is also an entry in the [wiki:"mpi22/mpi21-change-log-errata" MPI-2.1 Change-Log Errata List].

Description

In MPI-2.1, the version number has changed from 2.0 to 2.1.
All changes that are relevant for the implementation must be noticed in the Change-Log chapter.
This entry is missing there.

The proposed solution adds it to the list based on the
sort criterion "page number".

The alternative solution adds the same text to the end of the list.

History

Proposed Solution

In Annex B, MPI-2.1 page 564, after line 18, the following list item must be added:

18.1. Section 8.1.1 on page 259.
      The subversion number changed from 0 to 1.

Impact on Implementations

None, because this was already specified in MPI-2.1

Impact on Applications / Users

None.

Alternative Solutions

In Annex B, MPI-2.1 page 566, after line 8, the following list item must be added:

34. Section 8.1.1 on page 259.
      The subversion number changed from 0 to 1.

Entry for the Change Log

None for Change-Log of MPI-2.2

Comments

The Change-Log is sorted by Section, page and line numbers.
To keep the original numbering of the items in the Change-Log,
I used a sub-item-number.
@mpiforumbot mpiforumbot self-assigned this Jul 24, 2016
@mpiforumbot mpiforumbot added this to the 2009/06/08 California milestone Jul 24, 2016
@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by RolfRabenseifner on 2008-12-13 05:36:05 -0600

Chapter author and Alexander Supalov added to CC

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by RolfRabenseifner on 2008-12-15 17:40:46 -0600

bosilca@eecs.utk.edu, alexander.supalov@intel.com, jsquyres@cisco.com, thakur@mcs.anl.gov, please can you review this proposal.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by bosilca on 2008-12-15 17:44:24 -0600

I don't see any problems with the proposed solution.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by rsthakur on 2008-12-15 22:26:52 -0600

Reviewed. Looks good.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by jsquyres on 2008-12-16 00:41:26 -0600

I don't think that putting it in the middle of the list is a good idea. Will you be able to get LaTeX to format it right?

I realize it would put page/section numbers out of order, but is there any other reason not to put it at the end of the list on p566?

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by bronis on 2008-12-23 11:35:43 -0600

This seems like the wrong overall solution to me. I think you (proabably) need to retain the list of changes from version 2.0 to 2.1. You also need a list of changes from 2.1 to 2.2. However, you should NOT merge the two lists. Otherwise, what is the title ofthe subsection? Currently, it is "B.1 Changes from Version 2.0 to Version 2.1"; this would not apply to the 2.2 changes. I think you need a new subsection in the change log that is titled "B.2 Changes from Version 2.1 to Version 2.2". Overall, we need a policy for how the change log is maintained. IMO, we should not retain the MPI-2 change log when we go to MPI 3. However, I think it is useful to maintain the change log across subversions. I am open to disagreements with my opinion about what the policy should be but we should definitely make one (and probably spell it out at the beginning of Annex B). The current wording is basicvally consistent with my opinion (changes from the previous version). We could add a statement such as "The changes are organized by how they have evolved in the subversions of the version presented in this document."

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by RolfRabenseifner on 2009-01-18 09:35:09 -0600

Comments to the reviews:

  • 2 reviews (bosilca, rsthakur) don't see any problem.
  • 1 review (jsquyres) would prefer to have it at the end of the list
    in MPI-2.1, Annex B.1, i.e., as list item 34 and not as item 18.1.
    [[BR]]
    I have added this proposal as "Alternative Proposal".
    [[BR]]
    Latex problems with item "18.1." can be solved.
    I would prefer, not to loose the sorting by section and page numbers.
  • The forth review (bronis) may not have detected that this is
    an MPI-2.1 errata and not a real MPI-2.2 item.
    I opened two new tickets to handle Change-Log for MPI-2.2 (Ticket Change-Log from Version 2.1 to Version 2.2 #100)
    and to modify version number in MPI-2.2 to (2,2) (Ticket Version number changed to (2,2) #101).

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by bronis on 2009-01-18 11:27:43 -0600

OK, now I get it. The proposed solution looks fine to me.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by rsthakur on 2009-01-26 21:51:24 -0600

I am ok with it being added as an 18.1. For those who care, it will be in a different color in the multicolored version that shows changes made to the text in 2.2.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by jsquyres on 2009-01-27 19:24:59 -0600

Per reviewer rules, I find the proposal ok. I will vote for the alternate, though. :-)

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by gropp on 2009-02-06 12:39:55 -0600

Reviewed and ok.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by RolfRabenseifner on 2009-02-07 16:43:57 -0600

because OKAYs from bronis, rsthakur, jsquyres, gropp.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by asupalov on 2009-04-03 05:00:05 -0500

I think the trick with 18.1 should not be used. End of list is OK.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by RolfRabenseifner on 2009-07-13 08:34:27 -0500

Attachment added: change-log_ticket61.pdf (82.9 KiB)

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by bosilca on 2009-07-21 15:04:26 -0500

Looks fine.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by jsquyres on 2009-07-21 15:12:07 -0500

PDF review: I still think the ".1" looks icky. :-) But it reviewed fine (i.e., that's what was passed by the Forum).

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by gropp on 2009-07-22 11:55:17 -0500

WDG - Reviewed and complete.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by rsthakur on 2009-07-22 16:38:53 -0500

PDF review ok.

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by RolfRabenseifner on 2009-08-20 09:48:12 -0500

Based on Jeffs attachment "MPI-2.2 ticket states.pdf" mail from Jun 12, 2009,
the ticket author has to check for the PDF reviews and should set to "Complete".

After 4 reviews: Set to "complete".

@mpiforumbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally by jsquyres on 2010-09-18 05:01:52 -0500

This ticket is (long-since) complete; marking it resolved/text committed.

@mpiforumbot mpiforumbot mentioned this issue Jul 24, 2016
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@mpiforumbot mpiforumbot

Labels
Correction to standard (for upcoming release) MPI 2.2 Text committed Ticket complete
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2009/06/08 California
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@mpiforumbot