[Rivet] Time for Rivet 2.5.3?

[Andy Buckley]

On 07/12/16 09:08, Holger Schulz wrote:
>
>
> On 06/12/16 21:41, Andy Buckley wrote:
>> On 06/12/16 18:13, Holger Schulz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/12/16 14:38, Andy Buckley wrote:
>>>> Hi Riveters,
>>>>
>>>> I merged all the pending contrib analyses into the Rivet 2.5.x branch
>>>> last week, and along with a few other infrastructure improvements and
>>>> bugfixes this feels to me like critical mass for the next patch
>>>> release, 2.5.3.
>>>>
>>> I might want to add a few more analyses --- when is the deadline?
>>
>> I thought there was an extra week before the BSM workshop at CERN...
>> but it's next week (damn, I was hoping to do a validation study of
>> some of our detector smearing before then: argh, not enough research
>> time.)
>>
>> Unless there's a *good* reason to wait and get more analyses in (or if
>> there are bugs), I'd hence like to have the release done this week in
>> order to be able to announce it at the meeting.
>>
>>>> I think the automatic build & validation system is maybe having
>>>> trouble at the moment (Holger?)
>>> I'll have a look.
>>
> Looks like the file system with the hepmc files was not mounted after
> rebooting IPPP computing
> on the weekend. The builds went all through just fine, the testing was
> affected 'only'.

Brilliant. So no build/test issues on the 2.5.x head?

>> Thanks!
>>
>>>> , but once that is running successfully on the branch head I suggest
>>>> that I just tag & release the thing: any objections / last requests?
>>> Other than adding some more analyses I don't have anything to contribute
>>> right now.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> PS. From here I hope that we can get the main features for 2.6.0 done
>>>> and ready for release in January, and hopefully the next v3 beta will
>>>> be available for Christmas, with a full release not too long into 2017.
>>> That sounds wonderful!
>>
>>
>> Ok, thanks. I'm tempted to say "wait for 2.5.4" for more analyses,
>> unless they're already written and just need copying into place.
> Ok agreed!
>>
>> For 2.6.0 I want to implement the rawParticles()/particles() interface
>> we discussed a while back (which among other things will lead to
>> DressedLeptons being smearable), and I'm keen to automate the analysis
>> plugin builds a bit more, to make future analysis integration a lot
>> easier.
>
>> We have a few other things in the Trello to-do list, like renaming old
>> analyses from Spires-based to Inspire-based names... let's see if we
>> feel up to that!
> I volunteer for that one.

Amazing, thank you! Changes like that on the "default" branch (aka 
trunk), please -- and you can re-apply your GSL removal there, if not 
already done. Thanks!

Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow
Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow