One thing that would be very helpful would be to make a clear line in the pull request where everything before that line is what was voted on originally and everything after is what was necessary for embiggenment. Since this almost entirely will show up in the LaTeX (with a few changes in the normative text too), it would be helpful to keep the unrelated changes (e.g. whitespace, comments, etc.) to a minimum to make it easy for people to see what’s changed at a glance. Thanks, Wes

On Mar 25, 2020, at 10:50 PM, Skjellum, Anthony via mpiwg-persistence <[email protected]> wrote:

Martin, it is fine to cover this as you suggest in the virtual meeting; hopefully we will do this via ticket 0 in the end. I agree this has to come after Bill's email issues.

Thank you Tony

Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor of Computer Science and Chair of Excellence Director, SimCenter University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] cell: 205-807-4968

From: mpiwg-persistence <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Schulz via mpiwg-persistence <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:36 PM To: Anthony Skjellum <[email protected]> Cc: MPI-3 Collective Subgroup Discussions <[email protected]>; MPI WG Persistence working Group <[email protected]>; William Gropp <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Issue of embiggenment for Ticket #25--Persistent Collectives

Hi Tony,

(Adding Bill and Wesley)

We also talked about this today and we agree, that this should be done sooner than later, but we do need the other changes from Bill’s email taken care of first by the chapter committees. Only this will allow for easy merges - the goal is to get this done by next week (please help push the chapter committees you are working with).

As for the procedure - we technically have handled that as a ticket 0 in past, but this has gotten larger. I would suggest we reserve part of a virtual meeting for that in which you can run through the changes. Based on the amount of reactions we can then decide whether this is truly ticket 0, or we need a vote (which IMHO would be an errata vote).

Does this make sense and help? 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

...

On 25. Mar 2020, at 15:44, Anthony Skjellum <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Dear Martin, we are at this time considering when we need to do the embiggenment work on the persistent collective operations. We think it should be done now.

How should we proceed?

1) We propose to open a new ticket and new PR. Do you agree? 2) Is this strictly a chapter-author update? 3) Is this something to be voted? Errata? full ticket?

Please advise us.

Thank you in advance, Tony (on behalf of the WGs)

-- Anthony Skjellum, PhD [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cell: +1-205-807-4968

_______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence>