1. Berkeley Lab Avatar Berkeley Lab
  2. CRD-CLaSS
  3. upc-specification
  4. Issues

Publish Draft 2

Issue #87 resolved
Former user created an issue

Originally reported on Google Code with ID 87 ``` This issue is for the discussion and resolution of publishing our next spec draft (draft 2) for wider community distribution and comment.

Changes currently ratified in our working draft: ----------------------------------------------- Issue 9: Library: High-Performance Wall-Clock Timers (upc_tick_t) Issue 51: revise text to eliminate an ambiguity in barrier matching semantics Issue 32: THREADS/MYTHREAD have "integral value" rather than "type int" Issue 83: Strengthen the "default" pragma from "implementation-defined" to "relaxed" Issue 33: clarification: MYTHREAD and THREADS are expressions (cannot assign to or take address of them) Issue 49: clarification: unlock of freed lock Issue 4: Progress guarantee of upc_notify and upc_wait Issue 55: Miscelaneous specification document typographical errors Issue 82: Remove the deprecated upc_local_alloc function

We currently have no issues in the PendingApproval state. Some issues are likely to move into that state after the 9/21 meeting, but due to the one month comment period they cannot be ratified into the working draft before 10/21, which would put a draft published at that time squarely in the pre-SC time crunch.

I believe the current changes are sufficient to justify soliciting community feedback, and that we should commence the technical process to publish Draft 2 immediately.

We should also plan to publish Draft 3 near the end of October, which will include any changes that are officially proposed in the next week or so, and may likely be the last draft published before SC.

```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-14 21:56:47

Comments (33)

  2. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Dan,

    The current document mark up files have these refs. to a Draft version.

    lang/upc-lang-spec.tex:\newcommand{\mydraftversion}{Draft 1.2} lib/opt/upc-lib-optional-spec.tex:\newcommand{\mydraftversion}{Draft 1.1} lib/proposed/amo/upc-lib-atomic-ops-spec.tex:\newcommand{\mydraftversion}{Draft 1.1} lib/proposed/castability/upc-lib-castability-spec.tex:\newcommand{\mydraftversion}{Draft 1.1} lib/proposed/nb-mem-ops/upc-lib-nb-mem-ops-spec.tex:\newcommand{\mydraftversion}{Draft 1.1} lib/req/upc-lib-required-spec.tex:\newcommand{\mydraftversion}{Draft 1.2}

    Do you recommend that all of these versions will go to "Draft 2"?

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-19 22:36:42

  3. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Dan,

    The current release procedure states:

    2.Write a brief "cover note" summarizing the changes in this draft, and a release announcement email. Add the cover note to TeX.

    Given that there is now list of changes table (page 2), courtesy of some improvements that you made to the change macros, is there any need for additional "cover note" text in the draft document?

    Obviously, for the release note, we might consider re-listing each issue described in the list of changes.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-19 22:41:35

  4. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` The language and required library documents have changed, so those should definitely be changed to Draft 2 and released. The optional doc is completely unchanged, but if you want to release that as well for completeness go ahead. The proposed documents should NOT be released, as they do not represent a committee consensus.

    The current cover note is sufficiently generic that it's probably fine as-is, and as you say the new List of Changes section gives the details. I think the cover note should remain in all drafts to reinforce this fact this is a non-final, non-normative draft document. Perhaps just change the release procedure to:

    2. Review the cover note and List of Changes section to ensure accuracy. Write a release announcement email summarizing the changes in this draft.

    As a side note, I've noticed the page number hyperlinks in the List of Changes section sometimes redirect to the wrong page in the document (even though the printed page number is correct). I suspect this is caused by the anchor appearing in a footnote, and possibly insufficient iterations of latex-mk. I haven't spent time to track it down (especially since this table won't appear in the final document), but perhaps someone else with more TeX expertise knows how to fix this..

    ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-19 23:05:30

  5. Former user Account Deleted

    ```

    Dan wrote: "I've noticed the page number hyperlinks in the List of Changes section sometimes redirect to the wrong page in the document (even though the printed page number is correct). I suspect this is caused by the anchor appearing in a footnote, and possibly insufficient iterations of latex-mk."

    Looking at the generated .lot file, it looks to me like the internal \ref{} that is being used to advance to the appropriate page is a reference to the *section* containing the changed text. If you click on the second issue 55 change, which has page 31 listed, it goes to the beginning of section 6.6.2 (page 30) ... which is the section where the change appears on the *next* page (page 31 as listed in the lot).

    There may be a way to generate a label for the page where the change is actually made and reference that label, but given my limited knowledge of latex, I don't know how to accomplish that.

    Aside: I did run pdflatex 7 times in a row by hand. This did not affect the final page numbers shown, as expected, based upon the observations noted above.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-19 23:51:01

  6. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` "looks to me like the internal \ref{} that is being used to advance to the appropriate page is a reference to the *section* containing the changed text"

    Ah ok - that makes sense, because I hijacked the latex list of tables to create that list, and hyperref is probably assuming the \table will create a label it can reference. It's a minor issue that doesn't affect the printed version or the final (non-draft) document, so let's just ignore it for now. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-20 00:43:22

  7. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Attached, are: 1. the proposed release notice for Draft 2. 2. Draft 2 diff's.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-21 05:46:04

    <hr>

  8. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` The draft note embedded in the release notice txt is outdated:

    "This draft is otherwise believed to be semantically identical in every detail to UPC language specification version 1.2 (ratified May 2005)"

    should probably just replace that paragraph with the current cover note. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-21 17:44:05

  9. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Also, what's the purpose of upc-spec-draft-2-release-diffs.txt ? (currently the contents are totally uninteresting)

    I don't think it's necessary to release a TeX diff, I did enough hacking with the changes package to make all the relevant changes appear in the PDF output. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-21 17:47:35

  10. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` I posted the diffs file for review only. It lists the intended change of the various draft version identifiers.

    I will update the release notice and re-post it as an attachment.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-21 19:59:00

  11. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Revision: 127 Author: gary.funck@gmail.com Date: Sat Sep 22 10:41:29 2012 Log: Bump draft version to Draft 2 and add a Draft 2 release email notice. http://code.google.com/p/upc-specification/source/detail?r=127

    Added: /trunk/admin/upc-spec-1-3-draft-2-notice.txt Modified: /trunk/lang/upc-lang-spec.tex /trunk/lib/opt/upc-lib-optional-spec.tex /trunk/lib/proposed/amo/upc-lib-atomic-ops-spec.tex /trunk/lib/proposed/castability/upc-lib-castability-spec.tex /trunk/lib/proposed/nb-mem-ops/upc-lib-nb-mem-ops-spec.tex /trunk/lib/req/upc-lib-required-spec.tex

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-22 17:44:14

  12. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Dan, I briefly reviewed Draft 2, and noticed that the required library document does not have a "list of changes". Please advise.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-22 17:46:41

  13. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` In comment 4, Dan suggested the following change to the draft release procedure. "2. Review the cover note and List of Changes section to ensure accuracy. Write a release announcement email summarizing the changes in this draft."

    I have updated the draft release procedure accordingly.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-22 17:48:16

  14. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` "I briefly reviewed Draft 2, and noticed that the required library document does not have a "list of changes". Please advise."

    Didn't seem worthwhile to include a LOC in the library doc for draft 2, since the only change was the very obvious addition of a new library section. We can easily add the LOC in a future draft of that doc if a bigger list of changes warrants. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-22 19:14:50

  15. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Dan wrote: "Didn't seem worthwhile to include a LOC in the library doc for draft 2 ...".

    Makes sense to me.

    Please review the current Draft 2 document and if it OK, build the signed versions of the PDF files, upload them, etc. Thanks.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-22 19:20:42

  16. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Is now an appropriate time to bump the version number?

    \subsubsection{Predefined macro names}

    \index{predefined macros} \npf The following macro names shall be defined by the implementation\footnote{In addition to these macro names, the semantics of [ISO/IEC00 Sec. 6.10.8] apply to the identifier MYTHREAD.} [...] \item{\tt \_\_UPC\_VERSION\_\_} \index{\_\_UPC\_VERSION\_\_} The integer constant 200505L.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-22 20:37:50

  17. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` "build the signed versions of the PDF files, upload them, etc"

    Done - please verify you can read them.

    I created a self-certified digital identify for our working group. I still think someone should pony up the cash to purchase a real root certification for document signing, but until then I'll just use this private one. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-22 21:17:56

  18. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` "Is now an appropriate time to bump the version number?"

    I would strongly say no - this is not a normative document, so that should not be incremented until the 1.3 spec is ratified (or nearly so). ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-22 21:29:04

  19. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Re: Comment 17 "Done - please verify you can read them."

    Confirmed.

    I will note that the change bars on the last page of the lib/req timers proposal cut off part of the text because it exceeds the right margin. Not a show-stopper, just an observation.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-22 23:58:01

  20. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Re: Comment 18 "I would strongly say no - this is not a normative document, so that should not be incremented until the 1.3 spec is ratified (or nearly so)."

    Makes sense, however the counter-argument is that this Draft 2 is no longer version 200505 either.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-23 00:02:55

  22. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Dan, If you haven't done so already, please rebuild the Draft 2 pdf's sign them and upload them. When done please send out an email to the upc-spec-dev and upc-spec-wg lists. After someone on those lists pings back that it is OK, we will release Draft 2.

    Yili, If you have a minute to quickly review the docs. after they're uploaded and Dan has sent an email, and then reply back to this issue, that would be appreciated.

    Thanks.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-24 00:17:32

  23. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Has something changed that requires rebuilding? Unless you had a problem opening the ones I already uploaded yesterday (and which have been visible on the site for 24 hours), those should be current.. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-24 02:12:37

  24. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` I see you just moved the tag to r130, but it doesn't seem worthwhile to redo everything for that cosmetic fix, since the upload has already been on the website 24 hours - just re-tag from r128 and call it good. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-24 02:17:07

  25. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` The public draft 2 uploaded by Dan yesterday looks good to me. Thanks! ```

    Reported by `yzheng@lbl.gov` on 2012-09-24 02:33:25

  26. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Dan/Yili, we will go with the r128 Draft 2 PDF's that have been uploaded.

    I will adjust the tag momentarily.

    Tomorrow AM, I will send out the notice.

    A detail: the last that I checked, the draft 1 PDF's were still tagged as "favorites" in the download area. Dan, your call, re: leave only the latest draft marked as a "favorite".

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-24 03:15:16

  28. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` The tag operation in comment 27 is a "fail", because it put trunk under the tag name. Will try again.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-24 04:46:03

  30. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Thanks for processing the new draft and sorry it turned out to be such a hassle - I was hoping this would become more streamlined as we went along..

    "A detail: the last that I checked, the draft 1 PDF's were still tagged as "favorites" in the download area. Dan, your call, re: leave only the latest draft marked as a "favorite"."

    I was planning to leave both Draft 1 and the current draft as favorites, since Draft 1 is the baseline for change comparisons.

    PS- Don't forget to bump the draft version on the working trunk once everything is done. ```

    Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-24 08:58:05

  31. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` $ send-upc-draft-release-mail 2 'September 22, 2012' mutt -s'UPC Specification 1.3 Draft 2' 'upc@hermes.gwu.edu' mutt -s'UPC Specification 1.3 Draft 2' 'upc-users@lbl.gov' mutt -s'UPC Specification 1.3 Draft 2' 'upc-spec@hermes.gwu.edu' mutt -s'UPC Specification 1.3 Draft 2' 'upc-spec-dev@googlegroups.com' mutt -s'UPC Specification 1.3 Draft 2' 'upc-spec-wg@googlegroups.com'

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-24 14:50:25

  32. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Revision: 135 Author: gary.funck@gmail.com Date: Mon Sep 24 07:54:15 2012 Log: Bump the draft version number to 2.1 http://code.google.com/p/upc-specification/source/detail?r=135

    Modified: /trunk/lang/upc-lang-spec.tex /trunk/lib/opt/upc-lib-optional-spec.tex /trunk/lib/proposed/amo/upc-lib-atomic-ops-spec.tex /trunk/lib/proposed/castability/upc-lib-castability-spec.tex /trunk/lib/proposed/nb-mem-ops/upc-lib-nb-mem-ops-spec.tex /trunk/lib/req/upc-lib-required-spec.tex

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-24 14:56:08

  33. Former user Account Deleted

    ``` Draft 2 release complete.

    ```

    Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-24 14:59:06 - Status changed: `Fixed`

  34. Log in to comment
Assignee
–
Type
task
Priority
critical
Status
resolved
Votes
0
Watchers
0
Jira: the preferred issue tracker for Bitbucket. Join the team!