Update NEWS and MAJOR/MINOR_VERSION for v1.4.5 #930
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: David M. Ozog <[email protected]>
wrrobin
reviewed
Feb 11, 2020
jdinan
reviewed
Feb 12, 2020
jdinan
approved these changes
Feb 12, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, with one minor wording suggestion. Did we end up making any changes to improve support for RXM/Verbs? I think there were some small but important things, including the memory registration mode bits. You could add a bullet like this to inform users of RXM/Verbs that they should update:
- Improvements to experimental support for RXM/Verbs provider stack with libfabric 1.8 and newer.
Note "and newer" since libfabric 1.9 series is out now.
wrrobin
approved these changes
Feb 12, 2020
Co-Authored-By: James Dinan <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Here is a draft of the
NEWSfile for a v1.4.5 release. Am I missing anything?With regard to the open PRs, I think #929 might be ok to include in v1.4.5, but everything is tested except for that change... (except Portals, still need to check that). #918 may change as v1.5 of the OpenSHMEM specification is released, so I tend to think we should defer that one. Thoughts @jdinan and @wrrobin?