Since we already passed first vote, there was an objection to that in the last meeting. -----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Barrett, Brian W Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:28 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #46: Add const Keyword to the C bindings-implementation On 3/19/09 16:00 , "Erez Haba" <erezh_at_[hidden]> wrote:

As to rushing this in, I'm curious, this ticket is there for over a year; already implemented twice and tested by two different bodies. Is this really rushing it in?

As to the procedural issues. This ticket is one of the first tickets that we had in the system, and of-course as the mpi forum body we did learn a thing or two in that process, unfortunately, first implemented with that ticket. So yes there would be issues. I think that we can resolve these 'issues' but puting dependency on passing this ticket given that we accept the other two corrections to the ticket.

We're not too late to submit a new proposal to 2.2, as I understand it. Why not do the right thing, pull #46, #129, and #130, bundle them into a new proposal, get comments, and remove the procedural issues? I think the hesitancy to do this only adds to my worry about this proposal, and is part of the view people have of "rushing it it". Brian -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories _______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list mpi-22_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22