[Rivet] Time for Rivet 2.5.3?

[Andy Buckley]

On 07/12/16 11:18, Holger Schulz wrote:
>
>
> On 07/12/16 10:35, Andy Buckley wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> No, I did local tests and things run smoothly. I'll do a dummy commit to
> trigger
> the whole build chain to make things nice again.
>
>>>> 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!
> Ok will do, Chris however mentioned that some people wanted to use gsl
> stuff in an analysis,
> I think some minimisation stuff, not sure what do do now.

Hmm, that's a first. Any details, Chris?

Fits into the general question of "what external libs do we allow?".

The GSL interface is actually pretty nasty from a C++ perspective, so I 
think it'd be best if we could avoid exposing all that raw-C-array, raw 
pointers, etc. stuff to analysis users... but what's the alternative? 
Pity Minuit isn't available anymore without hauling in the rest of ROOT, 
and all its runtime foibles & attempts to grab the wheel :-/

Andy

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