[MITgcm-devel] updates on seaice code consolidation

Thu Dec 9 17:05:18 EST 2010

Matt, two specific questions to you: which *_if code are you using? Is it the one in pkg/seaice or the one in MITgcm_contrib?

If it is the former, are you satisfied that we can now remove pkg/seaice/*_if from repository since this code has now been been merged in the main pkg/seaice routines by Gael?

Dimitris Menemenlis
818-625-6498

On Dec 9, 2010, at 1:24 PM, "Patrick Heimbach" <heimbach at MIT.EDU> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> I am summarizing a brief telecon which we had today between
> JPL (Dimitris, Ian, An) and MIT (Gael, Jean-Michel, myself).
> 
> Our goal is (has been for a while) to
> * incorporate Ian's changes into "main" code
> * clean up code
> * be able to get rid of the _if versions in pkg/seaice (and MITgcm_contrib/ )
> 
> The status as of September was:
> * the "legacy" code in pkg/seaice
> * the "_if" code in pkg/seaice
> * latest code from Ian in MITgcm_contrib (at my request) for the purpose of merging with code in pkg/seaice
> 
> At the time of Martin's and Dimitris' visit we had hoped to be able to 
> run the MITgcm_contrib/ code, but attempts by several people to do so 
> failed despite repeated iterations of fixes.
> Moving forward we had formulated a strategy at MIT to 
> get a code that 
> 1. tries to incorporate Ian's modifs,
> 2. do so in a controlled way (traceable via CVS),
> 3. cleans up many of the issues of legacy code (yneg, and many other issues)
> 5. a cleaned-up sequence that is more amenable to modularization, e.g. for coupling
>   (e.g. move age calculations and similar to separate routines,
>   deal with salinity code and salt_plume params),
> 5. solves non-conservation issues.
> 
> Main work on 1.-4. was taken on by Gael, and item 5. tackled by Martin.
> As far as I understand, starting point for Gael's merge was the "legacy" 
> code with main merges taken from _if routines.
> 
> I guess this has gone a long way, but
> in order to bring it to successful completion we have the following issues:
> 1. extent to which code improvements in Ian's MITgcm_contrib are still missing
>   (Ian voiced concerns that some important terms described in his thesis
>   as adapted from McPhee are still missing)
> 2. make sure that major setups that we are aware of run "successfully"
>   with the latest code, so that we can complete the clean-up
> 
> To deal with 1. Ian has agreed to document what pieces are still missing
> (forthcoming on mitgcm-devel).
> 
> To deal with 2. some of the major setups need to re-run (and retuned?).
> Especially, Matt who's probably the only one having used the _if code
> (I lost track which one) should re-run SOSE and see if he's happy with "latest code".
> Suggestion is that this be done with the next checkpoint (c62p).
> "full list of setups are:
> * Matt: SOSE
> * Dimitris/Hong: ECCO2
> * An/Gunnar: Arctic
> * Gael/Patrick: ECCO-GODAE codes
> * Holly: Atlantic setup
> * Martin: his setup(s)
> * Ian: Lab Sea setup, with special focus on adjoint behaviour
> 
> Hope I captured it all, not too confusing and not too inaccurate.
> Cheers
> -Patrick
> 
> ---
> Patrick Heimbach | heimbach at mit.edu | http://www.mit.edu/~heimbach
> MIT | EAPS 54-1518 | 77 Massachusetts Ave | Cambridge MA 02139 USA
> FON +1-617-253-5259 | FAX +1-617-253-4464 | SKYPE patrick.heimbach
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel