[Swift-devel] duplicated job submission in swift-0.92?

[Michael Wilde]

----- Original Message -----
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 20:14 -0500, Michael Wilde wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > We decided the following:
> > > - I will revert the changes in the 0.92 branch
> > > - re-commit bug fixes that were committed after the merge
> > > - merge the 0.92 branch to trunk
> > > - fix the problems in trunk
> >
> > Sounds good. But when and how does the fix get to users?
> 
> The package(s) are fine. Though we should probably also have a source
> package. The merge was done after the package(s) were uploaded to the
> swift site.

Ah, great!

> This only affects folks who have checked out from SVN the 0.92 branch
> after the merge 9 days (or so) ago.

Hmm - I question that. The release we use, based on 0.92 on Beagle, shows the twice-each error, and it was made on Feb 25, about 35 days ago. Does this merit clarification?

> We should send an email to the user list once this is fixed. We may
> also
> want to send an email warning them not to check out from SVN but
> download the precompiled package instead.

OK. I cant say that this will reach everyone. Perhaps some status notes on the Download page are in order. The 0.91 link there is wrong, so we need to fix that page anyways.

> I am a bit confused though. I would have expected the release to come
> with some announcement of some form.

Agreed. We kept this low profile because we were trying to coordinate it with a Web change that we never accomplished.  And we've lost the habit of swift-user announcements but got to get back to doing that. So, yes.
> 
> >
> > Either create a 0.92.1 release (sounds hard based on above)
> > or create a 0.93 release (in which case should we create the 0.93
> > branch from trunk as soon as this is fixed?)
> >
> > How long to re-test? (Thats a question for Sarah, Justin, and Ketan)
> > Could this include the Cray support mods?
> 
> No! Fixing a problem is not a venue for introducing untested things
> into
> a release.

I meant the Cray feature for 0.93 not 0.92.1
Yes, that should be tested.
But its being used pretty heavily.

- Mike

> But it could be discussed separately :)
> 
> Mihael

-- 
Michael Wilde
Computation Institute, University of Chicago
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory