This ticket doesn't seem to have any defenders at the moment. I'll post our plans on the ticket itself and if nothing comes up by the end of the month, it will be withdrawn. Wesley On May 7, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Wesley Bland <[email protected]> wrote:
As we discussed on the call last week, there are quite a few tickets on the FTWG list, many of which have been largely untouched for at least a year, and many times, much longer. I'm going to try to start a thread for each of the tickets to get a conversation going about whether or not we should keep these tickets around or clean them up and mark them as retracted. I'll try to give a brief summary of the ticket, though I encourage everyone to take a look at the ticket to have a chance to read any notes made there.
To establish some ground rules, I don't propose removing any tickets just because the person who started them doesn't read their email today. I think we should let these things stick around for a while longer to give people a chance to catch up. I think if we don't hear anything defending a ticket by the next forum meeting (beginning of June), we can consider the ticket as dormant and can withdraw them. I'm certainly open to suggestion otherwise.
----
author: ftillier
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/277
This ticket discusses a middle ground between MPI_TEST and MPI_WAIT where requests can have a timeout value attached to them which would limit the amount of time spent in an MPI_WAIT operation. Request timers could also be reset using MPI_TIMER_RESET and cancelled using MPI_CANCEL.
This ticket hasn't been touched since early 2012.