[MITgcm-devel] other problem in recent check-in

[Martin Losch]

Here's what I'll do:
I'll leave global_with_exf as it is (exept maybe add the prepare run  
script of global_ocean.90x40x15) and I'll add another sub-experiment  
input.yearly, where I design my own new test.

The special case does not work, so no reason check in a broken  
experiment.

Martin

On 29 Jan 2008, at 03:07, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:

> Martin, a test of usefldyearlyfields would be useful.
>
>> In case you agree with this, how do I do this linking/copying without
>> increasing the number of files (MBs) in the repository?
>
> One option would be to check-in a small script that does the  
> linking and runs the usefldyearlyfields test offline, rather than  
> automatically with testreport?
>
>> 1. change the model calendar to "model", but then the "gregorian"  
>> calendar will not be used. Is it tested elsewhere? Yes, in  
>> lab_sea, for example
>> 2. increase the fldperiods to 2628000 or 2635200 to be on the safe  
>> side.
>> 3. forget about testing this yearly fields stuff
>
> As you point out option 3 would save you a lot of work but if you  
> do decide to go ahead, I would leave "gregorian" calendar and  
> "fldperiods=2628000" unchanged but with fldstartdate=19920115, as  
> you suggest.  This is one of the special cases that I want  
> exf_GetFFieldRec to be able to work with (and plan to implement in  
> near future).
>
> D.
>
> P.S. It now does not make a difference if fldstartdate=19910115 or  
> 19920115 or whatever starting year.
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel