From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23403 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2009 23:10:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 23392 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2009 23:10:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from proofpoint2.lanl.gov (HELO proofpoint2.lanl.gov) (204.121.3.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:10:20 +0000 Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by proofpoint2.lanl.gov (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7RNABwm029134 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:10:11 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6379E163F30 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:10:11 -0600 (MDT) X-NIE-2-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at mailrelay1.lanl.gov Received: from alvie-mail.lanl.gov (alvie-mail.lanl.gov [128.165.4.110]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E15163D44 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:10:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [130.55.124.157] (manticore.lanl.gov [130.55.124.157]) by alvie-mail.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6AF1FC003 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:10:05 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: GSL 2.0 roadmap From: Gerard Jungman To: GSL Discuss Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <48E25CA9.6080306@iki.fi> <490DE4BD.7070907@iki.fi> <497B00F6.2080400@iki.fi> <498727E5.6080407@iki.fi> <49AA9DB5.6030908@iki.fi> <49FB01D1.30000@iki.fi> <4A7ADFDC.9080408@iki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1251414774.23092.80.camel@manticore.lanl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NIE-2-MailScanner-Information: Please see http://network.lanl.gov/email/virus-scan.php X-NIE-2-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIE-2-MailScanner-From: jungman@lanl.gov X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2009-08-27_08:2009-08-26,2009-08-27,2009-08-27 signatures=0 Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 Well, the discussion has started, and people are starting to step out with their "2.0" ideas. The way I look at it, there are three things that need to happen, in general terms: 1) The backlog of 1.x-incompatible changes needs to be cleared. This corresponds to stuff on Brian's 2.0 todo list; probably lots of other stuff too. We need to make sure we overlook nothing. 2) New modules can be considered for inclusion. 3) Changes to existing modules must be considered, where there are clear needs for improvements, in implementations, interfaces, or both. Set (1) is fairly well-controlled, although it will take some care to make sure everything is done right. I'm sure Brian is on top of that. Set (2) is easy in a sense, since by definition it involves well-encapsulated changes/additions. Clearly, set (3) is the most difficult. Major issues here are related to complex numbers, vector/matrix abstractions, linear algebra, special functions, and FFTs. There are others, but it will take some time to create a full assessment of the existing modules. Detailed input from users will be needed. However, we do need to decide on some plan for set (3), since small changes in set (1) might affect or be affected by ideas from (3). Some partial assessment of where we are is needed. A GSL state-of-the-union is a large task. I have been thinking about it, on and off, for months. In a followup message, I will include my (incomplete) thoughts on this. These are almost all critical thoughts, since I don't see any point in patting ourselves on the back. Feel free to blast away at it. -- Gerard Jungman