Difference between revisions of "Teleconference 2022-01-26"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Attendees: == ECP Updates == * ECP Annual Meeting ** Call for BoF, Breakout, Panel, Tutorials: Due Feb 16 ** Usually participate with Alpine * Crusher test and development...") |
|||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
== Roundtable == | == Roundtable == | ||
| + | |||
| + | When updating the tests, Ken noticed some discrepancies in the rendering for some types of components. Who is now responsible for rendering and can take a look at this: | ||
| + | * [https://gitlab.kitware.com/vtk/vtk-m/-/issues/664 MapperQuad colors are wrong] | ||
| + | * [https://gitlab.kitware.com/vtk/vtk-m/-/issues/665 MapperConnectivity is buggy] | ||
| + | * [https://gitlab.kitware.com/vtk/vtk-m/-/issues/666 MapperCylinder just does not work] | ||
LSSw whitepaper: a big part of Jim's response is a question of whether everything should be in VTK-m or if there is still stuff that should be otherwise. We should give some thought on what should or shouldn't be in VTK-m and have a reasonable argument for it. | LSSw whitepaper: a big part of Jim's response is a question of whether everything should be in VTK-m or if there is still stuff that should be otherwise. We should give some thought on what should or shouldn't be in VTK-m and have a reasonable argument for it. | ||
Revision as of 14:29, 25 January 2022
Attendees:
ECP Updates
- ECP Annual Meeting
- Call for BoF, Breakout, Panel, Tutorials: Due Feb 16
- Usually participate with Alpine
- Crusher test and development system for Frontier
- Our CSC331 project now has access
- Apparently Kitware does not have access (even though I was told they would have it)
- If you are waiting on my approval for something, send me an email
- System is still not alerting me when I have approvals waiting
- Our CSC331 project now has access
- ECP management is wanting weekly updates on early access progress
- Not sure how that communication is going to happen
- Software sustainability town halls
- Let's think about possible highlights
- App engagement
- Success with porting (e.g. run on Aurora)
- Engagement with other ST teams (e.g. using Kokkos)
- WDM
- Submitted highlight on integration with EFFIS
- Expect to submit another highlight when used in a big run
- Possible highlight slide on particle advection with WarpX (Matt)
- Improvement with Kokkos on Spock
Porting Activities
- https://wiki.jlse.anl.gov/display/inteldga/ECP+2.3.4.13+VTK-m
- https://frontier-coe.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FCOE/pages/1161625609/Porting+Activities+O21
ECP task updates
Roundtable
When updating the tests, Ken noticed some discrepancies in the rendering for some types of components. Who is now responsible for rendering and can take a look at this:
LSSw whitepaper: a big part of Jim's response is a question of whether everything should be in VTK-m or if there is still stuff that should be otherwise. We should give some thought on what should or shouldn't be in VTK-m and have a reasonable argument for it.
R&D100?
- Thinking of submitting for 2022
- Big stumbling block: needs to be "created" between Jan 2021 to March 2022
- Plan: Release VTK-m 2.0, do a copyright assertion
Rename master branch?
- Need to wait for some changes to git before the transition (for some automated features of repo).
- Can we for a time have a master that mirrors the new default?
- Don't know, but seems possible. Will have to look into that.
