Hi Jim, Yes, assuming we leave things as planned (just shifted by one meeting due to the missed quorum), the meeting next week is the cutoff for errata tickets to be included and we would vote on the entire standard at the March meeting next year. As for the info keys proposal ­ sure, we¹ll move this forward as an MPI 4.0 ticket. Martin From: Jim Dinan <[email protected]> Reply-To: Main mailing list <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 1:24 AM To: Main mailing list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket Martin, Thanks for the correction -- I thought that the deadline for 3.1 readings was Japan, and that it moved ahead a meeting because of the quorum issue. I guess I confused this with the errata deadline? In any case, the info keys proposal is done and we should move it forward, even though it may miss the 3.1 cutoff. ~Jim. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Martin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jim, all,

This ticket is on the agenda now as a reading (plenary) and we can certainly discuss the larger implications and how/where to handle this in the future.

However, note that based on the current timeline, this won¹t make it into MPI 3.1. At the moment, MPI 3.1 is slated to be completed in March. We can, of course, decide to change that, but if we allow new tickets this meeting for 3.1, this would push the a final version at least to September.

Martin

From: Jim Dinan <[email protected]> Reply-To: Main mailing list <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 3:05 AM To: Main mailing list <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

Just wanted to respond to the incomplete comment --

The intention with the info keys ticket was always to bring forward each info key or info key topic as a separate ticket. I know there are a lot of info keys left that are very important, and hopefully we can continue to reach consensus and bring them forward to be voted on. The wildcards info key proposal really represents the start of that process and should chart the course for future proposals.

~Jim.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:

...

It has some of the interested parties, not all. I am interested in such items, and thought that the whole topic had fallen off the plate, so was very surprised to hear there is a concrete proposal, which in my view is incomplete.

Rich

From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 3:29 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

Hybrid WG already had all the interested parties and was active. I don't recall p2p WG was particularly active when discussion of 381 started ~2 years ago.

As always, every member of the forum can participate in any WG and 381/461 were always discussed in the open for anyone to see.

As it currently stands, p2p WG has more than enough to discuss without this ticket.

Note also that some of the info keys discussed have a greater impact when threads are involved, hence are connected to hybrid.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Why is such a proposal coming out of the hybrid working group ? This is more appropriate for the point-to-point working group. Not that it is that critical what the group name is, but more to get feedback from a wide range of folks interested is such topics.

Rich

From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Dinan Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 8:58 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

Hi All,

The hybrid working group would like to put forward ticket #461 (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/461) for consideration for MPI 3.1, with a formal reading at the upcoming December meeting.

This ticket proposes the no_any_tag and no_any_source info keys, on which we have achieved consensus. We continue to have vigorous and productive debate on additional communicator info keys proposals that have been captured in #381. We will pursue these additional proposals for MPI 4.0.

Thanks and see you in December,

~Jim.

_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum