Hi Hubert, Thanks for the feedback. The language we used in the proposal is consistent with the existing spec. I think I would prefer to let the Hybrid WG make this change when the Forum decides to move ahead with their renaming proposal. ~Jim. On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Hubert Ritzdorf < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
in conjunction with the process discussion in the hybrid group:
Wouldn't it make sense to replace "process" by "MPI process" in the new text on Pages 249-250 ?
Hubert ------------------------------ *From:* mpiwg-p2p [[email protected]] on behalf of Jim Dinan [[email protected]] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2016 9:40 PM *To:* MPI WG Point To Point Communications working group *Subject:* [mpiwg-p2p] Info assertions draft
Hi All,
I have attached an updated draft for the info assertions proposal. The two week deadline is quickly approaching; please send feedback before the end of the week.
Thanks, ~Jim.
Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/+xpPmuWT7LDWQxILzJ5p9zsHlc6Ch4!k4z!cQRfe9O+ZalWYVqWYWDqNqu3Lw+8K!wQ2sNkfd43jwSwM3UsBbQ==> to report this email as spam.
_______________________________________________ mpiwg-p2p mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-p2p