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.

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

Issue 175 Sharing basics #393

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Issue 175 Sharing basics #393

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

dsolt
Copy link
Contributor

@dsolt dsolt commented Jan 27, 2022

No description provided.

dsolt added 3 commits January 27, 2022 10:42
This will be squashed eventually but doing this strange ordering in
multiple commits to make sure that we can most easily see what changed.

Signed-off-by: [email protected]
The chapter on NonReserved_Keys is going away.  The final location
is a new chapter called SharingBasics that goes over the basics of
how applications share data.  We then present the idea that there is
some "already shared data" in the form of reserved keys in that chapter.
This can all get collapsed into a simpler commit when we merge, but
doing it this way helps with viewing how text changed.

Signed-off-by: [email protected]
The final move to its new location happens in another PR
The removal of Synchronization material happens in another PR
The removal of the Query material happens in another PR
This PR reworks the material of Chap_API_NonReserved_Keys and the
PMIx_Get API presentation into a new consolidated presentation that
gives a full overview of how to put/get data using PMIx and leaves
the reserved keys entirely for its own chapter.

Signed-off-by: [email protected]
@dsolt dsolt force-pushed the sharing_basics branch 2 times, most recently from 6203d87 to d615424 Compare January 27, 2022 18:25
@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
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dsolt added 2 commits February 7, 2022 14:31
Missing the use of refapi and ac/acp macros
Some minor text changes.

Signed-off-by: [email protected]
Account for bad merges which missed them.

Signed-off-by: [email protected]
@dsolt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsolt commented Feb 7, 2022

pmix-standard-sharing-basics_new.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.

@dsolt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsolt commented Feb 15, 2022

@dsolt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsolt commented Feb 15, 2022

Copy link
Member

@jjhursey jjhursey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Notes from the reading at 1Q 2022 ASC meeting

Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
support the \refterm{instant on} option) or where the host environment does not
provide a required piece of data. Other than the prefix, there are no
restrictions on the use or content of non-reserved keys.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Question: Can you have a key "foo" defined in both the LOCAL and REMOTE scopes possibly with different values?
Answer:

  • Believe that is not allowed. Need to confirm that this clarification is preserved - possibly in the scope section.
  • Actually, it is allowed to have the key posted to both scopes.

Chap_API_Sync_Access.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
chapter xxx -> Chapter xxx 
as explained in \ref{xxx} -> as explained in Chapter \ref{xxx} (or Section \ref{xxx})
many uses of PMIx functions without using the correct \refapi macro
Get rid of extraneous text:  [Reference to publish/lookup chapter].
Get rid of extraneous ')' character 
Signed-off-by: [email protected]

Co-authored-by: Josh Hursey <[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 #405

@jjhursey
Copy link
Member

Closing in favor of #405 - which has the same changes, but rebased

@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
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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants