Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Issue 175 make sync chap 2commits #390

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Issue 175 make sync chap 2commits #390

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

dsolt
Copy link
Contributor

@dsolt dsolt commented Jan 25, 2022 •
edited
Loading

This introduces a new synchronization chapter in anticipation of a more thorough chapter explaining put/get. That work will leave that chapter very full and the synchronization API, while short, doesn't really fit into that new chapter.

@dsolt
We moved the synchronization material out of Sync_Access into its own
0f8d9a4 
chapter. The new Chap_API_Sharing_Basics.tex is identical to the old
Chap_API_Sync_Access chapter except the introduction changed and the
synchronization API's are deleted. The Sharing_Basics introduction
is very minimal right now, but we have additional changes coming to
populate this chapter with an thorough explanation of the get/put
routines.

Signed-off-by: [email protected]
@dsolt dsolt added the WorkInProgress Work In Progress label Jan 25, 2022
@dsolt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsolt commented Jan 25, 2022

When viewing this PR, I suggest you click on the individual commits (well, really the 2nd commit) to see what was changed. Otherwise, it tries to show you the Chap_API_Sync as a new chapter and you can't see as easily what we changed.

@dsolt dsolt force-pushed the issue_175_make_sync_chap_2commits branch from 4b2243a to dfc962d Compare January 25, 2022 22:17
@dsolt
Actual changes to move synch to its own chapter.
dff7ca3 
Separated out into a separate commit to keep git from
changing the target of the move.  (Easier to see what
changed this way)

Signed-off-by: [email protected]
@dsolt dsolt force-pushed the issue_175_make_sync_chap_2commits branch from dfc962d to dff7ca3 Compare January 26, 2022 16:45
@dsolt dsolt mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2022
Closed
@dsolt dsolt removed the WorkInProgress Work In Progress label Jan 26, 2022
@dsolt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsolt commented Jan 27, 2022

Please use emoji reactions ON THIS COMMENT to indicate your position on this proposal.

You do not need to vote on every proposal
If you have no opinion, don't vote - that is also useful data
If you've already commented on this issue, please still vote so
we know your current thoughts
Not all proposals solve exactly the same problem, so we may end
up accepting proposals that appear to have some overlap
This is not a binding majority-rule vote, but it will be a very
significant input into the corresponding ASC decision.

Here are the meanings for the emojis:

Hooray or Rocket: I support this so strongly that I
want to be an advocate for it
Heart: I think this is an ideal solution
Thumbs up: I'd be happy with this solution
Confused: I'd rather we not do this, but I can tolerate it
Thumbs down: I'd be actively unhappy, and may even consider
other technologies instead
If you want to explain in more detail, feel free to add another
comment, but please also vote on this comment.

@jjhursey jjhursey added Eligible Eligible for consideration by ASC RFC Request for Comment labels Jan 31, 2022
@jjhursey jjhursey mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2022
Closed
@dsolt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsolt commented Feb 7, 2022

pmix-standard-sync.pdf

Here is a pdf showing the changes to this chapter with green highlighting for new text, red for changed text and grey for moved text.

abouteiller
abouteiller reviewed Feb 17, 2022
View reviewed changes
@dsolt
Feedback from 1st reading
ddbaa4c 
- Remove unnecessary and confusing "remote" from data exchange description
Signed-off-by: [email protected]
@jjhursey
Copy link
Member

jjhursey commented Mar 7, 2022

PMIx ASC 1Q 2022

  • Passed the first vote: 11 yes / 0 no / 0 abstain
  • This is eligible for a second vote in the 2Q 2022 ASC quarterly meeting

@jjhursey jjhursey added the First Vote Passed ASC first vote passed label Mar 7, 2022
@jjhursey
Copy link
Member

PMIx ASC 2Q 2022

  • Passed the second vote: 11 yes / 0 no / 0 abstain
  • Will be merged into the next release

@jjhursey jjhursey added the Accepted as Stable ASC second vote passed. Accepted as Stable! label May 12, 2022
@jjhursey
Copy link
Member

Rebased version in #408

@jjhursey jjhursey mentioned this pull request May 25, 2022
Merged
@jjhursey
Copy link
Member

Closing in favor of PR #408 - which is the same content, but rebased onto the current master

@jjhursey jjhursey closed this May 26, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@abouteiller abouteiller abouteiller left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Accepted as Stable ASC second vote passed. Accepted as Stable! Eligible Eligible for consideration by ASC First Vote Passed ASC first vote passed RFC Request for Comment
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@dsolt @jjhursey @abouteiller