[MITgcm-devel] negative diagnostics freq

[chris hill]

D.,

  That sounds like a good plan.

Chris
Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
> My vote is "not" to touch the time-averaged time stamp, leave it at the 
> end of the period, as it is right now.  This is where it has been since 
> MITgcm-time immemorial.  It would create immense grief and confusion if 
> this admittedly-not-ideal convention were to be changed now.
> 
> But, can I go ahead and fix the snapshot timestamp.  It's needlessly 
> confusing as it stands right now and contrary to every other dumpfreq 
> and tavefreq convention in the code.
> 
> D.
>