[G12] versions of mc tools

[Paul Eugenio]

I disagree with the requirement of linking gsim to pass 1 libs.   Building gsim current is fine if not better, but this is not true for a1c.   


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


(850) 644-2585
eugenio at fsu.edu

On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Craig Bookwalter <craigb at jlab.org> wrote:

> Okay, this is what I understand from this:
> - we want first and foremost the pass1 version of the detector libraries, since this is where all the reconstruction work is done.
> - we want the pass1 version of the a1c source code, if only for consistency. it's hard for me to imagine changes to a1c itself that would affect data quality. the worst you could do would be to change the orders of subroutine calls, perhaps.
> - we want the latest version of the genr8, gamp2part, GSIM and gpp sources, but linked against the pass1 libraries, again for consistency.
> 
> If everyone agrees with this approach I'll create the corresponding build under the clasg12 account for g12 MC use.
> 
> --cb
> 
> 
> Il 07/15/2010 04:38 PM, Paul Eugenio ha scritto:
>> Mike,
>> 
>> This is clearly a bad approach.
>> 
>> CLAS software changes for the good and sometimes for the bad.  This was clearly seen early on in the run, when we were fixing the tracking code.   We fixed a bug put in by g11/g10 which while wrong, went unnoticed.  Because we have the target back more, it was noticeable.   It would be wrong for anyone analyzing g11/g10 data to use the current tracking code without reprocessing all raw data too.  Would you reprocess all raw data for a 10% improvement?  I would not, but I also don't want my acceptance shifted by 10%.  So for g11, using the current code would be wrong.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Paul Eugenio
>> Physics Department
>> Florida State University
>> Tallahassee, FL 32306
>> 
>> 
>> (850) 644-2585
>> eugenio at fsu.edu
>> 
>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 9:31 AM, mpaolone at jlab.org wrote:
>> 
>>> Craig and everyone,
>>> 
>>>  I'm looking at this the other other way.  We are still in the analysis
>>> stage, and if the current version of a1c is giving us a better
>>> reconstruction (occasional bugs aside, it should never be worse) than
>>> the pass1 a1c, then we should instead consider cooking another pass.
>>> Has a1c changed significantly since pass1?  Have we touched the detector
>>> libraries since then?  If there have been no significant changes that
>>> affect your analysis channel, then it should be fine to compare
>>> current-a1c cooked MC calculations with pass1-a1c reconstructed data.
>>> 
>>> -Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>  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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> G12 mailing list
>>> G12 at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12