Forwarding this on to the general MPI-2.2 list because I'd like to ask for clarifcation on the MPI-2.2 errata process (i.e., what *exactly* did we vote for on ticket #171?)... Begin forwarded message:

From: "MPI Forum" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]> Date: September 7, 2009 10:13:23 AM EDT Subject: Re: [MPI Forum] #171: change MPI_C_BOOL external32 size to 1 byte

#171: change MPI_C_BOOL external32 size to 1 byte ------------------------------------------------------- +-------------------- Reporter: goodell | Owner: Type: Correction to standard | Status: new Priority: Had 1st vote | Milestone: 2009/09/02 Helsinki Version: MPI 2.2 errata | Keywords: Implementation: Unnecessary | Author_bill_gropp: 0 Author_rich_graham: 0 | Author_adam_moody: 0 Author_torsten_hoefler: 0 | Author_dick_treumann: 0 Author_jesper_larsson_traeff: 0 | Author_george_bosilca: 0 Author_david_solt: 0 | Author_bronis_de_supinski: 0 Author_rajeev_thakur: 1 | Author_jeff_squyres: 0 Author_alexander_supalov: 0 | Author_rolf_rabenseifner: 0 ------------------------------------------------------- +--------------------

Comment(by jsquyres):

After a little reflection, I'm a bit unclear on '''exactly''' what we voted on for this ticket.

Specifically, is this ticket a request to change the MPI-2.2 latex? If so, it is not in the proper form -- it should have the proper sections for all tickets.

Or is this a ticket to add a bullet to the not-yet-created MPI-2.2 errata document? If so, I don't see clearly delineated what text '''exactly''' is going into the new errata document.

To be more clear: I believe that the entire MPI-2.2 errata process needs to be laid out. It seems clear to me that we need ''both'' changes to the MPI-2.2 latex (for the 2.3 or 3.0 or whatever the next MPI version document is) ''and'' a bullet for the MPI-2.2 errata document. Are there supposed to be two tickets; one for each item? Or should errata tickets have text for both documents (line-by-line changes compared to MPI-2.2 ''and'' a bullet item for the MPI-2.2 errata document)?

I understand the urgency of this ticket, but I repeat something that Bill said many times in Helsinki: above all else, the process must be preserved (in this case: defined!). Pending clarification to the the MPI-2.2 errata process, we might need to reset the clock on this ticket.

-- Ticket URL: <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/171#comment:7

...

MPI Forum <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/> MPI Forum

-- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] *