Hi Rolf, all,

I'm sorry that I could not attend the discussion at last meeting. Jeff's minutes are not yet available, therefore my opinion may be in contrary to votes at the meeting - then please tell me.

My opinion after looking at ticket 254, file chap-coll/coll.tex :

I strongly disagree with the current state of the latex source. You reinvented all the old MPI-2.2 markups, i.e., you uncleaned the tex source of exactly one file: coll.tex. I did not reinvent them, I merged them from the MPI-2.2 document as we agreed on the first vote for NBC.

Let me re-state what we decided after Rajeev brought that point up right before the first official vote on NBC last year. We decided to merge the MPI-2.2 changes into the reviewed (and voted on) revision 6 of the NBC document and then merge the document back to the main document. I volunteered to do this. And that's what I did, I used diff tools to merge the MPI-2.2 changes into the NBC document and the merged that one back (I removed the superfluous macros with diff tools). All changes (besided the ireduce_scatter_block of course) were semi-automatic and less error prone than manual changes.

All MPI-2.2 markups are removed to allow the usage of Bills macros to mark all new MPI-3.0 changes. I could not find any \MPIupdate{3.0}... or similar markups in your new source.

The 73 changes (found be grep'ing "htor") should be done into "current" coll.tex revision 253 and not into a very old revision. Yes, I agree, but our defined method was different and also allowed for semi-automatic merging.

There is no chance to do the cleaning again on your current unclean coll.tex revision 254! I volunteer to do the cleanup of the final document with the same method you used (pdftotext and diff) once we decided that the document is complete.

All these 73 changes should be marked with Bill's macros as ticket {3.0}{109}. I decided to keep the MPI-2.2 macros in order to allow the reviewers to (1) compare revision 6 of the NBC document with MPI-2.2 (see if all 2.2 changes are successfully merged) and compare MPI-2.2 with the MPI-3.0 draft to see if ticket #109 was merged successfully. It is necessary to be able to compare all changes relative to the voted-on NBC document separately. Thus, the MPI-2.2 changes are in the original colors and the MPI-3 changes are b/w. All macros can be removed with pdftotext checking.

If the forum decided to step back to the uncleaned source then it should be done for all sources and not only for coll.tex. No, we did not decide to do that and I will clean the document manually once we decided to stick with the PDF.

Not to reviewers: this whole discussion does *not* affect the pdf, it only changes source-code and removal and changes of the macros will be checked with pdftotext like Rolf's cleanup was done.

Rich and Jeff, I cannot see any comments on ticket #203, nor any review from you. Did you discussed it at the Jan 2010 meeting? Well, btw., as a general comment: we all knew that NBC was coming and that the voted-on chapter based on MPI-2.1. So it was clear that the cleanup would cause a major pain for the merge before it was started. It would have been better to hold it back until the NBC was merged in :). But I guess we don't have a similar situation in the future.

I just talked to Rolf on the phone and we agreed that I will do the manual cleanup of chapter 5. Again, this will not change the non-markup PDF at all and so any reviews that we can get before the March meeting would be very helpful. Thanks & All the Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Research Associate Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801 NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736