February 2020 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

#120 Re: Planing for the MPI Forum Meeting in February
by Rolf Rabenseifner 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

Hi all, I have to do an update to my previous email on issue #120: There are now two versions A and B: - A with MPI_Count dim_weights - B with double precision dim_weights HW Topology Working Group - working group meeting (expected for Tuesday afternoon) to prepare forum decision between A and B and re-reading. Plenary: - a re-reading of issue #120 MPI_Cart/Dims_create_weighted version A (may be shortened to read only modified parts) and then diff to version B with straw-vote between A and B - a no-no-vote for the changes since Albuquerque added for - better readable text - having a significantly shorter halo example - a full reading if the no-no-vote fails - a first vote if the no-no-vote passes. MPI_Cart_create_weighted / Topology aware Cartesian Communicators * Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/120 * PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/98 * PDF: A: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/files/4149191/mpi-report-issue120-t… B: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/files/4154367/mpi-report-issue120-t… Current Status of #120: - Had reading at Albuquerque (version Nov.07/updated Nov.21, 2019) - Was significantly shortened in Albuquerque and halo example was also removed - This changed version (Dec. 11, 2019) failed the non-no-vote - Updated Versions (A and B) now for (re-)reading are from Feb.04, 2020 Thanks and kind regards Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Cc: "Guillaume Mercier" <guillaume.mercier(a)u-bordeaux.fr> > Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 7:28:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Planing for the MPI Forum Meeting in February > Hi all, > > The Hardware Topologies Working Group would like to additional request > > - a re-reading of issue #120 MPI_Cart/Dims_create_weighted > - a no-no-vote for the changes since Albuquerque added for > - better readable text > - having a significantly shorter halo example > - a full reading if the no-no-vote Fails > - a first vote if the no-no-vote passes. > > MPI_Cart_create_weighted / Topology aware Cartesian Communicators > > * Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/120 > * PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/98 > * PDF: > https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/files/4149191/mpi-report-issue120-t… > > Current Status of #120: > - Had reading at Albuquerque (version Nov.07/updated Nov.21, 2019) > - Was significantly shortened in Albuquerque and halo example was also removed > - This changed version (Dec. 11, 2019) failed the non-no-vote > - Updated version now for (re-)reading is from Feb.03, 2020 > > Thanks and kind regards > Rolf > > > On 1/22/20 1:35 PM, Martin Schulz via mpi-forum wrote: >> (Sorry, some may get this a second time due address autocompletion problems) >> >> Hi all, >> >> The February MPI Forum meeting is getting closer. Logistics and >> registration is online at the usual place: >> >> https://www.mpi-forum.org/meetings/2020/02/logistics >> >> Please register as soon as you can. >> >> Note, due to the holiday on Monday, the meeting is this time from >> Tuesday 2pm to Friday 12:30. >> >> As a consequence, the cutoff for ballots, readings, etc. is Tuesday >> February 4th. Please send all announcements to the list. If there are >> any additional requests for plenary sessions, please let me know as >> well, with the connected WG chair in CC. >> >> Also, as we are wrapping up MPI 4.0 and I will (hopefully) not get many >> requests directly connected with MPI 4.0, I will try to make time for >> WGs again. Hence, WG-chairs, please send me any time requests for the >> forum meeting for WG discussions. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Martin >> >> >> — >> Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems >> Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching >> Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) >> Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >> > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) .

1 0

#122 Re: Planing for the MPI Forum Meeting in February
by Rolf Rabenseifner 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

Hi all, I want to ask for the following reading and voting: - a update-reading of issue #122 "New intro to Nonblocking Comm." -- removed any Change-macros from pull request -- change-log according to reading in Albuquerque, now also part of pull request -- 3 Terms added to General index - a no-no-vote for these changes since Albuquerque - a full reading if the no-no-vote fails - a first vote if the no-no-vote passes. Title: Intro nonblocking: no serialization & no deadlocks * Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/122 * PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/99 * PDF: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/files/4153705/mpi-report-issue122-N… Current status of #122: - The text had a complete reading at Albuquerque based on a pull request with macros inside, but proposed change-log missing (was read only from the issue description) Thanks and kind regards Rolf On 1/22/20 1:35 PM, Martin Schulz via mpi-forum wrote: > (Sorry, some may get this a second time due address autocompletion problems) > > Hi all, > > The February MPI Forum meeting is getting closer. Logistics and > registration is online at the usual place: > > https://www.mpi-forum.org/meetings/2020/02/logistics > > Please register as soon as you can. > > Note, due to the holiday on Monday, the meeting is this time from > Tuesday 2pm to Friday 12:30. > > As a consequence, the cutoff for ballots, readings, etc. is Tuesday > February 4th. Please send all announcements to the list. If there are > any additional requests for plenary sessions, please let me know as > well, with the connected WG chair in CC. > > Also, as we are wrapping up MPI 4.0 and I will (hopefully) not get many > requests directly connected with MPI 4.0, I will try to make time for > WGs again. Hence, WG-chairs, please send me any time requests for the > forum meeting for WG discussions. > > Thanks! > > Martin > > > — > Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems > Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching > Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) > Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum > _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Embiggenment: formal reading
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

As you all saw, a last-minute request from the Tools WG has made a minor change in the Embiggenment PDF. Luckily, we're still (barely) before the T-2 week deadline, so here's a new PDF that contains the requested change. Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137 PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/132 PDF: attached to Feb 4, 2020 comments on the issue/PR (this PDF includes all relevant text changes *AND* all the Embiggened bindings) Search for "ticket137" in the text to find all the text changes. The Embiggened functions are not marked; they are simply evident throughout the entire document. > On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:10 AM, Marc-André Hermanns via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, Hi Martin, > > argh ... sorry for being so late on this (see my other mail), but > could you take the two calls > > MPI_T_pvar_handle_alloc > MPI_T_cvar_handle_alloc > > out of the embiggening? The MPI_Count for the count argument does not > really help in practice, so we (the tools WG) decided we would not > need it. > > I hope this does not re-rail your announcement of the reading. > > Cheers, > Marc-Andre > > On 03.02.20 23:25, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum wrote: >> The Embiggenment WG is ready for a formal reading at the Feb 2020 Portland MPI Forum physical meeting. >> >> Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137 >> PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/132 >> PDF: attached to Feb 3, 2020 comments on the issue/PR >> (this PDF includes all relevant text changes *AND* all the Embiggened bindings) >> >> Search for "ticket137" in the text to find all the text changes. >> The Embiggened functions are not marked; they are simply evident throughout the entire document. >> >> ----- >> >> To be clear, the Embiggenment WG is *NOT* raising this PDF as a "no no" vote compared to the ABQ meeting. This is a new PDF, and this will be its first formal reading. >> >> The rationale is twofold: >> >> 1. A series of small items have come up (and been resolved) since the ABQ meeting that have not yet been presented to the Forum. We will present these in Portland. >> 2. This PDF includes *ALL* the rendered Embiggened APIs (which were not presented at the ABQ meeting). >> >> After much thought/discussion in the WG, it just didn't seem right to bring up such wide-ranging changes in a "no no" vote. Yes, the Chapter Chairs/Committees have reviewed the Embiggened sections. But it doesn't seem like this is within the intended scope of the "no no" vote. A "no no" vote is supposed to be for "small" things. >> >> We recognize that this "resets the clock" on this PR, and that it makes timing for MPI-4.0... awkward. It still seemed like the responsible thing to do. >> > > -- > Dr. rer. nat. Marc-André Hermanns > > IT Center > Group: High Performance Computing > Division: Computational Science and Engineering > RWTH Aachen University > Seffenter Weg 23 > 52074 Aachen > Phone: +49 241 80-24381 > hermanns(a)itc.rwth-aachen.de > www.itc.rwth-aachen.de > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Vote Announcement for Portland--2 weeks' notice--Ticket #136--Partitioned Point-to-point Communication
by Anthony Skjellum 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

Dear colleagues: The Persistent and Pt2pt WGs jointly announce the vote on Ticket #136. It was successfully read in Albuquerque in December (and passed subsequent no-no votes in the process). Ticket: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/136 PR: mpi-forum/mpi-standard#117 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/117> A new PDF will be attached to the ticket later today. Thank you, Tony Skjellum -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD skjellum(a)gmail.com Cell: +1-205-807-4968

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Embiggenment: formal reading
by Marc-André Hermanns 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

Hi all, Sorry for the noise. Was intended as a private reply. Cheers, Marc-Andre On 04.02.20 08:10, Marc-André Hermanns wrote: > Hi Jeff, Hi Martin, > > argh ... sorry for being so late on this (see my other mail), but > could you take the two calls > > MPI_T_pvar_handle_alloc > MPI_T_cvar_handle_alloc > > out of the embiggening? The MPI_Count for the count argument does not > really help in practice, so we (the tools WG) decided we would not > need it. > > I hope this does not re-rail your announcement of the reading. > > Cheers, > Marc-Andre > > On 03.02.20 23:25, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum wrote: >> The Embiggenment WG is ready for a formal reading at the Feb 2020 Portland MPI Forum physical meeting. >> >> Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137 >> PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/132 >> PDF: attached to Feb 3, 2020 comments on the issue/PR >> (this PDF includes all relevant text changes *AND* all the Embiggened bindings) >> >> Search for "ticket137" in the text to find all the text changes. >> The Embiggened functions are not marked; they are simply evident throughout the entire document. >> >> ----- >> >> To be clear, the Embiggenment WG is *NOT* raising this PDF as a "no no" vote compared to the ABQ meeting. This is a new PDF, and this will be its first formal reading. >> >> The rationale is twofold: >> >> 1. A series of small items have come up (and been resolved) since the ABQ meeting that have not yet been presented to the Forum. We will present these in Portland. >> 2. This PDF includes *ALL* the rendered Embiggened APIs (which were not presented at the ABQ meeting). >> >> After much thought/discussion in the WG, it just didn't seem right to bring up such wide-ranging changes in a "no no" vote. Yes, the Chapter Chairs/Committees have reviewed the Embiggened sections. But it doesn't seem like this is within the intended scope of the "no no" vote. A "no no" vote is supposed to be for "small" things. >> >> We recognize that this "resets the clock" on this PR, and that it makes timing for MPI-4.0... awkward. It still seemed like the responsible thing to do. >> > -- Dr. rer. nat. Marc-André Hermanns IT Center Group: High Performance Computing Division: Computational Science and Engineering RWTH Aachen University Seffenter Weg 23 52074 Aachen Phone: +49 241 80-24381 hermanns(a)itc.rwth-aachen.de www.itc.rwth-aachen.de

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Embiggenment: formal reading
by Marc-André Hermanns 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

Hi Jeff, Hi Martin, argh ... sorry for being so late on this (see my other mail), but could you take the two calls MPI_T_pvar_handle_alloc MPI_T_cvar_handle_alloc out of the embiggening? The MPI_Count for the count argument does not really help in practice, so we (the tools WG) decided we would not need it. I hope this does not re-rail your announcement of the reading. Cheers, Marc-Andre On 03.02.20 23:25, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum wrote: > The Embiggenment WG is ready for a formal reading at the Feb 2020 Portland MPI Forum physical meeting. > > Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137 > PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/132 > PDF: attached to Feb 3, 2020 comments on the issue/PR > (this PDF includes all relevant text changes *AND* all the Embiggened bindings) > > Search for "ticket137" in the text to find all the text changes. > The Embiggened functions are not marked; they are simply evident throughout the entire document. > > ----- > > To be clear, the Embiggenment WG is *NOT* raising this PDF as a "no no" vote compared to the ABQ meeting. This is a new PDF, and this will be its first formal reading. > > The rationale is twofold: > > 1. A series of small items have come up (and been resolved) since the ABQ meeting that have not yet been presented to the Forum. We will present these in Portland. > 2. This PDF includes *ALL* the rendered Embiggened APIs (which were not presented at the ABQ meeting). > > After much thought/discussion in the WG, it just didn't seem right to bring up such wide-ranging changes in a "no no" vote. Yes, the Chapter Chairs/Committees have reviewed the Embiggened sections. But it doesn't seem like this is within the intended scope of the "no no" vote. A "no no" vote is supposed to be for "small" things. > > We recognize that this "resets the clock" on this PR, and that it makes timing for MPI-4.0... awkward. It still seemed like the responsible thing to do. > -- Dr. rer. nat. Marc-André Hermanns IT Center Group: High Performance Computing Division: Computational Science and Engineering RWTH Aachen University Seffenter Weg 23 52074 Aachen Phone: +49 241 80-24381 hermanns(a)itc.rwth-aachen.de www.itc.rwth-aachen.de

1 0

Embiggenment: formal reading
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 03 Feb '20

03 Feb '20

The Embiggenment WG is ready for a formal reading at the Feb 2020 Portland MPI Forum physical meeting. Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137 PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/132 PDF: attached to Feb 3, 2020 comments on the issue/PR (this PDF includes all relevant text changes *AND* all the Embiggened bindings) Search for "ticket137" in the text to find all the text changes. The Embiggened functions are not marked; they are simply evident throughout the entire document. ----- To be clear, the Embiggenment WG is *NOT* raising this PDF as a "no no" vote compared to the ABQ meeting. This is a new PDF, and this will be its first formal reading. The rationale is twofold: 1. A series of small items have come up (and been resolved) since the ABQ meeting that have not yet been presented to the Forum. We will present these in Portland. 2. This PDF includes *ALL* the rendered Embiggened APIs (which were not presented at the ABQ meeting). After much thought/discussion in the WG, it just didn't seem right to bring up such wide-ranging changes in a "no no" vote. Yes, the Chapter Chairs/Committees have reviewed the Embiggened sections. But it doesn't seem like this is within the intended scope of the "no no" vote. A "no no" vote is supposed to be for "small" things. We recognize that this "resets the clock" on this PR, and that it makes timing for MPI-4.0... awkward. It still seemed like the responsible thing to do. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Pythonization: formal reading
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 03 Feb '20

03 Feb '20

Thank you to all Chapter Chairs/Committees who completed reviews. The Pythonization effort is nearly complete. Note that this is essentially a "ticket 0" PR. Based on the feedback from the ABQ Forum meeting and discussions afterwards, we strove to make Pythonization as much of a no-op as possible compared to the head of the mpi-forum/mpi-standard:mpi-4.x branch. Meaning: we reversed our position on some of the "small improvements" that were presented in the ABQ meeting (e.g., we are no longer changing "rank" descriptions in the language independent bindings from "integer" to "non-negative integer"). It turns out that there were a million exceptions to these little improvements, so we decided it would be significantly safer / faster to *NOT* do them in this first round of Pythonization. It's unclear if we need a formal reading and/or vote, or if this is completely "ticket 0". Regardless, we're announcing this before the T-2 week deadline, just in case it requires voting/etc. Issue: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/158 PR: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/152 PDF: attached to Feb 3, 2020 comments on the issue/PR To reiterate: the focus of this PR is to be as much of a no-op as possible compared to the head of the mpi-4.x branch. That being said: there definitely are "ticket 0"-quality changes (whitespace, grammar, ordering of Fortran params, etc.). But no semantic or non-grammar-fixing text changes. ----- It is quite possible (likely) that there will be followup errata and improvements after this PR. In particular, the language-independent bindings came under intense discussion over the last 2 weeks. There are definitely areas where they can be improved, but that is outside the scope of this first Pythonization effort. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Time To Open Source MPI
by Wesley Bland 03 Feb '20

03 Feb '20

We’ll be moving from our existing Jenkins server to GitHub Actions. The benefit is that this runs on GitHub’s servers and is easy to update when we need to update the environment (e.g. requiring a newer version of Python like we do now). I’ve been able to test this in a side repository and it works well for what we need. It’s also free for public repositories. > On Feb 3, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Joseph Schuchart via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > > Wesley, > > I do not have a strong opinion on this question. However, you keep mentioning that the testing infrastructure is broken. I wasn't at the last meeting so I must have missed the discussion there. How would moving to a repo restore the testing infrastucture? > > Cheers > Joseph > >> On 2/3/20 8:59 PM, Wesley Bland via mpi-forum wrote: >> I really want to emphasize how little work this should be for each person. For people with lots of PRs (like you), I estimate it’ll be less than 15 minutes before the meeting and less than 15 minutes afterward. For people with no open pull requests, it’s 0 minutes. If people are having trouble, I can do “almost” everything for you (other than clicking the delete and fork buttons). I’m asking for help here because I’d rather make a small amount for a handful of people instead of a lot of work for just me. This is also one of the reasons I want to do this in person, so I can help those having trouble. >> The reason we want to do it now is because this only became a problem at the last meeting when we broke the testing infrastructure. We could keep pushing this back, but in the meantime, we won’t be getting the benefit of that testing that we’ve relied on for a while to help make sure that Bill has an easier time of merging our pull requests (which will be even more important as we start to finish up these votes). >> We didn’t make this decision just to give people more work and I spent a fair amount of time making this as painless for everyone as possible. However, unlike some of the other transitions that we’ve made in the past(e.g. SVN -> Git), we also didn’t have the benefit of a long run-up to make this change. >> Thanks, >> Wesley >>>> On Feb 3, 2020, at 1:36 PM, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Wesley, >>> >>>> This change really won’t be as painful as it sounds >>> >>> Then why do I have to do a bunch of unexpected/unscheduled backup and book-keeping work before an arbitrarily chosen deadline? I’m not sure that springing this surprise on folks is the wisest course of action. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Dan. >>> — >>> Dr Daniel Holmes PhD >>> Architect (HPC Research) >>> d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]> >>> Phone: +44 (0) 131 651 3465 >>> Mobile: +44 (0) 7940 524 088 >>> Address: Room 2.09, Bayes Centre, 47 Potterrow, Central Area, Edinburgh, EH8 9BT >>> — >>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> — >>> >>>> On 3 Feb 2020, at 16:02, Wesley Bland via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Because in the meantime, our testing remains broken and we don’t have another solution to fix it at the moment. We really want to have that testing fix. >>>> >>>> This change really won’t be as painful as it sounds. There’s almost no Git commands required. No rebasing/merging/etc. >>>> >>>>> On Feb 3, 2020, at 9:57 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why aren't we doing this when we finished 4.0, i.e. merged all the voted in >>>>> pull requests into the standard? >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> Cc: "Wesley Bland" <work(a)wesbland.com <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 4:38:48 PM >>>>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Time To Open Source MPI >>>>> >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> ** Look at the numbered list for your action items before 2020-02-18! ** >>>>>> >>>>>> Since we moved from Subversion to GitHub, there’s been a back and forth on >>>>>> whether the MPI Standard Source code should be open source or closed source. As >>>>>> you know (since most of you have access to it, we decided to keep the standard >>>>>> closed for a few reasons (avoiding rogue copies of the Standard was a big one), >>>>>> but recently, the scales have tipped back toward open sourcing and after >>>>>> talking to Bill and Martin some more, we think it’s finally time to open up the >>>>>> MPI Standard repository. Specifically, these are the issues that get addressed >>>>>> by moving to a public repository: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Participation to the forum has a barrier to entry (i.e. me) >>>>>> * Our current automated testing system is broken and will not be fixed >>>>>> * We rely on special dispensation from GitHub for free, private repositories >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ll be discussing this in more detail in Portland, but I want to make folks >>>>>> aware that this is coming now because it will have some impact on people who >>>>>> are actively working on text proposals. The mitigations here should be pretty >>>>>> straightforward and I have both slides (for a high level) and a wiki page (for >>>>>> details) on what’s happening and what you need to do about it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The short version for the purpose of this email and your action item leading up >>>>>> the forum next week is to do two thing s: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Back up your branches. >>>>>> 2. Make a note for each of your open pull requests on where the are and what >>>>>> issues they’re attached to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Detailed notes and the slides I’ll present in Portland on how to do this are >>>>>> here: [ >>>>>> https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/wiki/Migrate-to-Public-Repository | >>>>>> https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/wiki/Migrate-to-Public-Repository ] >>>>>> >>>>>> The plan is for me to flip this switch DURING THE FEBRUARY MEETING! This should >>>>>> not disrupt any readings for the meeting itself as none of the pull requests >>>>>> will actually be deleted, but they will all become stale and we’ll need to >>>>>> re-open new ones. The main benefit of doing this during the meeting is that >>>>>> if/when anyone has trouble, I’ll be there in person to provide live help to >>>>>> anyone else that’s there (sorry, Marc-Andre, you’ll need to follow my slides >>>>>> remotely \uD83D\uDE00). >>>>>> >>>>>> Please email me if you have questions or concerns. If there’s enough demand, I’d >>>>>> even be willing to do a short Virtual Meeting on this on Wednesday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Wesley >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de <mailto:[email protected]> . >>>>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner <http://www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner> . >>>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Time To Open Source MPI
by Joseph Schuchart 03 Feb '20

03 Feb '20

Wesley, I do not have a strong opinion on this question. However, you keep mentioning that the testing infrastructure is broken. I wasn't at the last meeting so I must have missed the discussion there. How would moving to a repo restore the testing infrastucture? Cheers Joseph On 2/3/20 8:59 PM, Wesley Bland via mpi-forum wrote: > I really want to emphasize how little work this should be for each > person. For people with lots of PRs (like you), I estimate it’ll be less > than 15 minutes before the meeting and less than 15 minutes afterward. > For people with no open pull requests, it’s 0 minutes. If people are > having trouble, I can do “almost” everything for you (other than > clicking the delete and fork buttons). I’m asking for help here because > I’d rather make a small amount for a handful of people instead of a lot > of work for just me. This is also one of the reasons I want to do this > in person, so I can help those having trouble. > > The reason we want to do it now is because this only became a problem at > the last meeting when we broke the testing infrastructure. We could keep > pushing this back, but in the meantime, we won’t be getting the benefit > of that testing that we’ve relied on for a while to help make sure that > Bill has an easier time of merging our pull requests (which will be even > more important as we start to finish up these votes). > > We didn’t make this decision just to give people more work and I spent a > fair amount of time making this as painless for everyone as possible. > However, unlike some of the other transitions that we’ve made in the > past(e.g. SVN -> Git), we also didn’t have the benefit of a long run-up > to make this change. > > Thanks, > Wesley > >> On Feb 3, 2020, at 1:36 PM, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Wesley, >> >>> This change really won’t be as painful as it sounds >> >> Then why do I have to do a bunch of unexpected/unscheduled backup and >> book-keeping work before an arbitrarily chosen deadline? I’m not sure >> that springing this surprise on folks is the wisest course of action. >> >> Cheers, >> Dan. >> — >> Dr Daniel Holmes PhD >> Architect (HPC Research) >> d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]> >> Phone: +44 (0) 131 651 3465 >> Mobile: +44 (0) 7940 524 088 >> Address: Room 2.09, Bayes Centre, 47 Potterrow, Central Area, >> Edinburgh, EH8 9BT >> — >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> — >> >>> On 3 Feb 2020, at 16:02, Wesley Bland via mpi-forum >>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Because in the meantime, our testing remains broken and we don’t have >>> another solution to fix it at the moment. We really want to have that >>> testing fix. >>> >>> This change really won’t be as painful as it sounds. There’s almost >>> no Git commands required. No rebasing/merging/etc. >>> >>>> On Feb 3, 2020, at 9:57 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why aren't we doing this when we finished 4.0, i.e. merged all the >>>> voted in >>>> pull requests into the standard? >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>> Cc: "Wesley Bland" <work(a)wesbland.com <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 4:38:48 PM >>>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Time To Open Source MPI >>>> >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> ** Look at the numbered list for your action items before >>>>> 2020-02-18! ** >>>>> >>>>> Since we moved from Subversion to GitHub, there’s been a back and >>>>> forth on >>>>> whether the MPI Standard Source code should be open source or >>>>> closed source. As >>>>> you know (since most of you have access to it, we decided to keep >>>>> the standard >>>>> closed for a few reasons (avoiding rogue copies of the Standard was >>>>> a big one), >>>>> but recently, the scales have tipped back toward open sourcing and >>>>> after >>>>> talking to Bill and Martin some more, we think it’s finally time to >>>>> open up the >>>>> MPI Standard repository. Specifically, these are the issues that >>>>> get addressed >>>>> by moving to a public repository: >>>>> >>>>> * Participation to the forum has a barrier to entry (i.e. me) >>>>> * Our current automated testing system is broken and will not be fixed >>>>> * We rely on special dispensation from GitHub for free, private >>>>> repositories >>>>> >>>>> I’ll be discussing this in more detail in Portland, but I want to >>>>> make folks >>>>> aware that this is coming now because it will have some impact on >>>>> people who >>>>> are actively working on text proposals. The mitigations here should >>>>> be pretty >>>>> straightforward and I have both slides (for a high level) and a >>>>> wiki page (for >>>>> details) on what’s happening and what you need to do about it. >>>>> >>>>> The short version for the purpose of this email and your action >>>>> item leading up >>>>> the forum next week is to do two thing s: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Back up your branches. >>>>> 2. Make a note for each of your open pull requests on where the are >>>>> and what >>>>> issues they’re attached to. >>>>> >>>>> Detailed notes and the slides I’ll present in Portland on how to do >>>>> this are >>>>> here: [ >>>>> https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/wiki/Migrate-to-Public-Repository >>>>> | >>>>> https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/wiki/Migrate-to-Public-Repository >>>>> ] >>>>> >>>>> The plan is for me to flip this switch DURING THE FEBRUARY MEETING! >>>>> This should >>>>> not disrupt any readings for the meeting itself as none of the pull >>>>> requests >>>>> will actually be deleted, but they will all become stale and we’ll >>>>> need to >>>>> re-open new ones. The main benefit of doing this during the meeting >>>>> is that >>>>> if/when anyone has trouble, I’ll be there in person to provide live >>>>> help to >>>>> anyone else that’s there (sorry, Marc-Andre, you’ll need to follow >>>>> my slides >>>>> remotely \uD83D\uDE00). >>>>> >>>>> Please email me if you have questions or concerns. If there’s >>>>> enough demand, I’d >>>>> even be willing to do a short Virtual Meeting on this on Wednesday. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Wesley >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email >>>> rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de <mailto:[email protected]> . >>>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . >>>> www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner >>>> <http://www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner> . >>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >> > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >

1 0