What purpose does it serve for you to watch a particular ticket and then see that it is now "resolved" even though the problem still exists for you. That only makes you cynical about the package and its developers. On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
The alternative is that
1. Doing nothing means it gets lost without resolution.
2. The only way to be notified of action is to subscribe to the mailing list (and not all fixes are mentioned there) which is high volume if all you care about is a particular bug.
On Apr 24, 2012 8:05 AM, "Barry Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
From that page "status changed from new to closed"
This is why I absolutely hate the idea of using "ticket" systems for open source projects. The goal becomes "close the tickets at all cost using any lame ass excuse you can" instead of actually thinking about the problem and coming up with a satisfactory solution.
BTW: How is OpenMPI on complex for Windows and C++ and stuff?
Barry
On Apr 24, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:15, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: Of course don't fix it. Who do these guys work for, Sandia?
They could fix it as an extension in MPICH2, but it would have to be added to the standard for us to rely on it. Considering that we still can't use anything past MPI-1.1, we won't be able to remove the hacks for a long time. This is not to say that it isn't worth fixing, just that your daughter will be in college by the time the fix can be assumed by callers.
MPICH used to lead by just doing good, useful things. The embarrassed standards committee would then adopt them. Now this is reversed?
Matt
-- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener