From: Stan Seibert (volsung@physics.utexas.edu)
Date: Sat Feb 11 2006 - 15:32:17 CST
Yes, I agree with both statements:
* Go ahead and commit if things look reasonable to you.
* We need some automated regression testing (not the same as unit
testing) that runs a bunch of jobs and makes some histograms so we
can track when things change.
I think in a couple weeks I will have a little time to investigate
setting up some regression testing for RAT.
--- Stan Seibert On Feb 11, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Matthew Worcester wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I agree with Josh. At some point we should probably identify a > standard set of parameters, such as the mean/width of the Gd > capture peak, that people adding new code should check with the > baseline design and IBD events before committing any changes. If > the standard numbers change then we should know why before the code > goes in. But now things are still in flux. If Stan agrees, just > check it in. > > Matt > > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Josh R Klein wrote: > >> Bill, >> Matt and Stan should weigh in here, but my feeling is that you >> should >> just go ahead and install things---cvs should let us roll back if >> we need >> to. >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:14:36PM -0500, William Seligman wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've converted Joe Formaggio's neutrino-electron elastic- >>> scattering code >>> into RAT. I've tested things (to the best as my limited >>> understanding >>> of the physics of the experiment), and it looks vaguely OK. >>> Should I >>> just put the code into CVS and update the Wiki with the new >>> commands, or >>> should I wait for the next Braidwood Simulations meeting first? >>> -- >>> Bill Seligman | Phone: (914) 591-2823 >>> Nevis Labs, Columbia Univ | mailto://seligman@nevis.columbia.edu >>> PO Box 137 | http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~seligman/ >>> Irvington NY 10533 USA | XDI: http://public.xdi.org/ >>> =william.seligman >> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Mar 08 2006 - 00:01:02 CST