We have a conflicting event on our side as well so we prefer cancellation as well. Aurelien

On May 24, 2017, at 12:22, Ignacio Laguna <[email protected]> wrote:

Sounds good to me to cancel and try again in a couple of weeks.

-- Ignacio Laguna Center for Applied Scientific Computing (CASC) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Phone: 925-422-7308, Fax: 925-422-6287

On 5/24/17 6:54 AM, Bland, Wesley wrote:

...

I don't have any new work to discuss at today's meeting and I haven't seen any activity on the GitHub page. Should we cancel today's call and try again in a couple of weeks? Just so we all know what our action items are, here a copy from the wiki page: • Working Group - Try to fix the deadlock problem in ULFM, either via automatic recovery or otherwise. If we do something else, we need to be able to explain why it's better than automatic recovery. • Working Group - Add function to the FT chapter to pick which FT model we want to use. • Ignacio - Write text for the backward recovery model to move forward with standardization of a second recovery model. This is probably the best way to make sure that ULFM and Reinit can live in the Standard together. _______________________________________________ mpiwg-ft mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-ft

---

mpiwg-ft mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-ft