[G12] versions of mc tools

[Paul Eugenio]

Craig,

For proper acceptance measurements, we should use the same a1c for mc that we used for cooking.   That way any minor flaws(unknown or not worth the recook) are taken into account.  

On the other hand, we should use the best gsim we have.  The detector hits we acquired during data taking are in now way affected by what gsim we had at the time.  The best gsim hopefully simulates detector hits closer to actual hits.

A good rule of thumb is that any software that processes the data should be aligned for mc processing.  

--
Paul Eugenio
Physics Department
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306


(850) 644-2585
eugenio at fsu.edu

On Jul 15, 2010, at 3:57 AM, Craig Bookwalter <craigb at jlab.org> wrote:

>  g12ers,
>     Last night I forgot to ask about which version of a1c one should 
> use when processing MC. I remember hearing that we should use the pass1 
> branch of the SVN repository so we're using the same code to cook real 
> data and MC data. However, do we want all MC-related tools to be built 
> from the pass1 branch, or just a1c? It seems strange to me to generate 
> detector responses with a GSIM linked against one version of detector 
> libraries and then reconstruct them with a1c linked against a different 
> version of the detector libraries. Perhaps all that matters is that the 
> detector libraries themselves are from pass1, since a1c mostly just 
> organizes input and output and sets up calls to those libraries. I have 
> no idea what GSIM might use the detector libraries for--I just know I 
> have to link them to get it to compile.
> 
> At present, ~clasg12/local/scripts/sample_gsim_desktop.sh uses tools 
> from the clas6 STABLE 32-bit build, which is not what was used for g12 
> pass1.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> --cb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> G12 mailing list
> G12 at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12