<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div>Hi Michael,<div><br></div><div>Based on some tips from Mark Petersen, I have done an svn merge from the trunk to the lateral boundary branch as </div><div><br></div><div>svn merge --dry-run -r 160:240 <a href="https://svn-mpas-model.cgd.ucar.edu/trunk/mpas">https://svn-mpas-model.cgd.ucar.edu/trunk/mpas</a> . (see what would change)</div><div>svn merge -r 60:240 <a href="https://svn-mpas-model.cgd.ucar.edu/trunk/mpas">https://svn-mpas-model.cgd.ucar.edu/trunk/mpas</a> . (merge trunk onto branch)</div><div><br></div><div>(supposedly) this merges the repository at .../trunk/mpas at rev 240 (which is the head) onto the branch that was created at rev 160. I am testing this code right now. Note that the "dry-run" option tells us what changes without actually doing the merge. </div><div><br></div><div>Having not done this before, I am learning as I go -- so suggestions are welcome.</div><div><br></div><div>Once I think I have the merge done correctly, I will commit the changes to the branch -- at that point we should be able to identify the changes that would occur by merging the branch to the trunk.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Todd</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div><div>On May 4, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Michael Duda wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi, Todd.<br><br>Actually, I've only made minimal changes to the hydrostatic<br>atmosphere core to handle the 'garbage' cell nCells+1; but, those<br>changes don't appear to have any negative effects.<br><br>I think one step that could help us in testing would be to bring<br>the lateral_boundary_conditions up to date with respect to the<br>trunk, so that the differences in the branch are exactly those we<br>will be proposing to make to the trunk. I've just started<br>experimenting with a diff tool yesterday evening, so I could try<br>to produce a set up updates to the branch that would bring it up<br>to date, and I could place those updates somewhere accessible to<br>other developers; if those updates pass inspection, I could commit<br>them. Does this sound like a reasonable approach?<br><br>Cheers,<br>Michael<br><br><br>On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:38:44PM -0600, Todd Ringler wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hi All,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">We have been working on a clean implementation of lateral boundary <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">conditions for a while now. Michael and I put together a design and <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">requirement document on the top that was circulated for comments.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">As near I can tell, we have successfully implemented this design in <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the shallow-water model and in the ocean model. Changes committed by <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Michael lead me to think that the design has also been pushed into the <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">hydrostatic atmosphere model.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Over the next couple of days Mark Petersen will be doing a review and <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">testing of the code under the lateral_boundary_conditions. His focus <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">will be on the ocean model component. Over the last couple of weeks <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mat Maltrud has been testing the shallow-water core with realistic <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">boundaries. All of this testing has occurred in "MPI-mode" on numerous <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">different platforms.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Some of the changes in this design occur under frameworks, so the push <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">back to the trunk will impact all model components when rebuilt. As <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">far as we can tell, these changes are innocuous to those not enforcing <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">lateral boundary conditions.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">A quick comparison of the shallow-water models in the branch and in <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the trunk show agreement out to ~12 digits after 500 time steps in <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">test case #5.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I am asking for suggestions in terms of testing and evaluation. We <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would like to merge this branch with the trunk very soon, but we want <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to be careful not to adversely impact the broader development effort.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cheers,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Todd<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">mpas-developers mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpas-developers@mailman.ucar.edu">mpas-developers@mailman.ucar.edu</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpas-developers">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpas-developers</a><br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>mpas-developers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mpas-developers@mailman.ucar.edu">mpas-developers@mailman.ucar.edu</a><br>http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpas-developers<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>