Difference between revisions of "Repository transition"
(comment on NewRad) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* EinsteinBase | * EinsteinBase | ||
* EinsteinEOS | * EinsteinEOS | ||
| − | * EinsteinEvolve RH: do we want to keep NewRad in here? It does not really provide evolution from a user's point of few rather it provides a boundary condition (which is implemented by modifying the RHS). It would seem to be more suitable for CactusNumerial (but has the wrong license) | + | * EinsteinEvolve RH: do we want to keep NewRad in here? It does not really provide evolution from a user's point of few rather it provides a boundary condition (which is implemented by modifying the RHS). It would seem to be more suitable for CactusNumerial (but has the wrong license) FL: This would "combine" GRHydro and the Illinois code, plus any other GR-related evolution thorn. Is this wanted? |
* EinsteinInitialData | * EinsteinInitialData | ||
* EinsteinUtils | * EinsteinUtils | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* PITTNullCode | * PITTNullCode | ||
* CactusConnect | * CactusConnect | ||
| − | * EinsteinInitialData/GRHydro_InitData | + | * EinsteinInitialData/GRHydro_InitData -> EinsteinTest arrangement? |
| − | * CactusExamples | + | * CactusExamples |
| − | * CactusTest (GRHydro_InitData goes here, as Test_GRHydro, RH: this is a license conflict. GRHydro_InitData is GPL) | + | * CactusTest (GRHydro_InitData goes here, as Test_GRHydro, RH: this is a license conflict. GRHydro_InitData is GPL), FL: EinsteinTest arrangement? |
* CactusWave | * CactusWave | ||
* CactusPUGH | * CactusPUGH | ||
Revision as of 08:16, 16 June 2014
Arrangements should go into one git repository each, except where noted:
- EinsteinAnalysis
- EinsteinBase
- EinsteinEOS
- EinsteinEvolve RH: do we want to keep NewRad in here? It does not really provide evolution from a user's point of few rather it provides a boundary condition (which is implemented by modifying the RHS). It would seem to be more suitable for CactusNumerial (but has the wrong license) FL: This would "combine" GRHydro and the Illinois code, plus any other GR-related evolution thorn. Is this wanted?
- EinsteinInitialData
- EinsteinUtils
- incoming
- manifest
- pyGWAnalysis
- tools
- VizTools/CarpetHDF5
- VizTools/CarpetN5
- VizTools/DataVaultXVSutils
- CactusBase
- CactusElliptic
- CactusIO
- CactusNumerical
- CactusUtils
- TAT
- flesh
- PITTNullCode
- CactusConnect
- EinsteinInitialData/GRHydro_InitData -> EinsteinTest arrangement?
- CactusExamples
- CactusTest (GRHydro_InitData goes here, as Test_GRHydro, RH: this is a license conflict. GRHydro_InitData is GPL), FL: EinsteinTest arrangement?
- CactusWave
- CactusPUGH
possible conflicting locations
- it would make sense to keep thorn X and its TestX thorn in the same repository. They should then not be split up into X in EinsteinEvolve and TestX in Cactus Test. This affects:
- GRHydro and GRHydro_Init_Data
- MoL and TestMoL
- Carpet and its Test thorns (currently Carpet / CarpetExtra arrangements)
In particular for the case of GRHydro, GRHydro itself has had many more frequent changes requiring updates to test data than GRHydro_Init_Data so it makes sense to keep the test parfiles and test data with GRhydro rather than with GRHydro_Init_Data (the future Test_GRHydro).
