|
[Rivet] Work for Rivet 2.4.0 release: call for contributions!Andy Buckley andy.buckley at cern.chMon Sep 28 17:18:13 BST 2015
I didn't think any of the new analyses would be using that feature! But if it's most natural for them to do so, then yes commit those analyses in the default branch. I was going to keep the 2-3-x branch open until the very end: it doesn't *really* matter, but at least that way no-one else is going to have a problem when they try to push their changes to 2-3-x and get told that that branch has been closed! Andy On 28/09/15 17:09, Chris Pollard wrote: > Hi all, > > Is there any objection to going ahead and merging 2-3-x into default, > closing 2-3-x, and creating 2-4-x? There is at least one non-trivial > difference between 2-3-x and default: it took me a while to realize that > Jet::bTagged() only has the optional Cut argument on the default branch. > In this case we should be checking the new analyses against the version > *with* the optional Cut argument, correct? > > Chris > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Holger Schulz > <holger.schulz at durham.ac.uk <mailto:holger.schulz at durham.ac.uk>> wrote: > > On 28/09/15 15:34, Andy Buckley wrote: > > No, it's uploaded to contrib but not in the Rivet code yet... > that's your job ;-) > > I just ran 100k sherpa events lo, no shenanigans and Chris P. Bacon > and I agree that this > looks very good. So I consider this thing validated. > > Holger > > > Andy > > > On 28/09/15 14:58, Holger Schulz wrote: > > Hi, > > sorry for being a bit slow. > > Does that mean that CMS_2013_I1122847 is ticked off the > things that need > to be done already? > > Holger > > > > On 28/09/15 14:16, Xavier Janssen wrote: > > > yes, ofc. VALIDATED > Xavier. > > On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:26, Andy Buckley > <andy.buckley at cern.ch <mailto:andy.buckley at cern.ch> > <mailto:andy.buckley at cern.ch > <mailto:andy.buckley at cern.ch>>> wrote: > > Excellent; thank you Xavier. > > I have merged the two new analyses into our > codebase. I assume that > the .info file for CMS_2015_I1385107 was meant to be > marked as > VALIDATED rather than UNVALIDATED? The two analyses > were both in very > good shape -- I just did a bit of minor LaTeX and > code tidying. Keep > 'em coming like that, please! > > Andy > > > On 28/09/15 11:17, Xavier Janssen wrote: > > Hi, > OK, we found back the code for CMS_2013_I1122847. > I have put the tar file in contrib as usual. > Cheers, Xavier. > > On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:45, Frank Siegert > <frank.siegert at cern.ch > <mailto:frank.siegert at cern.ch> > <mailto:frank.siegert at cern.ch > <mailto:frank.siegert at cern.ch>>> wrote: > > Holger > CMS_2013_I1122847 (missing since > 2.3.0 cf. Xavier's email) > D0_2000_I503361.tar.gz > > --> cf. the clarifications asked for in > the submission thread. I > think if this cannot be clarified, we don't > have to hold the release > for this one analysis. > > Cheers, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > Rivet mailing list > Rivet at projects.hepforge.org > <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org> > <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org > <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org>> > https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet > > > > > -- > Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University > Research Fellow > Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rivet mailing list > Rivet at projects.hepforge.org > <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org> > https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rivet mailing list > Rivet at projects.hepforge.org <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org> > https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet > > -- Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow
More information about the Rivet mailing list |