[MITgcm-devel] mypackage_calc_rhs.F

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Dimitris,

Yes, sounds a good plan.
Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 06:29:27PM -0700, Menemenlis, Dimitris (3248) wrote:
> Jean-Michel, sorry I got distracted.
> 
> I will proceed in four steps.
> 
> 1) I will modify in contrib to be sure I can reproduce verification experiment in contrig with bi/bj loop.
> 
> 2) I will add pkg/bbl  -  the verification experiment will remain in contrib
> 
> 3)  I will modify one of the existing verif experiments, so we don't have to recompile the code one more
> time but leave the verif experiment in the notes and point to it from documentation
> 
> 4) add description of package to documentation
> 
> OK?
> 
> Dimitris Menemenlis
> 
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 5:45 AM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> 
> > Hi Dimitris,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 04:52:09PM -0700, Menemenlis, Dimitris (3248) wrote:
> >> JM, thank you for heads up.
> >> 
> >> Are you referring to mypackage_calc_rhs.F in MITgcm_contrib/bbl ?
> > 
> > Yes. If this version is up-to-date, I can modify it (add bi,bj loops
> > inside and remove bi,bj arguments) or I can leave it as it is
> > waiting for the bbl pkg to come.
> >> 
> >> Any chance I would be allowed to transfer this bit of code to MITgcm/pkg/bbl ?
> > If you think it's ready, could go for a pkg/bbl right now (unless
> > you prefer to have a new checkpoint tag just before, might be better,
> > just let me know and could do one soon).
> > 
> > Do you plan also to add a verification experiment ? or add a secondary
> > test to an existing set-up ? (e.g., a verification/dome/input.bbl if
> > it fits well in this dome set-up). Since we already have a serious number
> > of mitgcmuv built, not adding a new one but using an existing one might
> > not be a bad idea. But otherwise, can go for one more full test-exp.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Jean-Michel
> >> 
> >> Cheers
> >> 
> >> Dimitris Menemenlis
> >> 
> >> On Jul 28, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Dimitris,
> >>> 
> >>> I would like to change "mypackage_calc_rhs.F", to remove
> >>> the bi,bj arguments and move the CALL MYPACKAGE_CALC_RHS
> >>> outside the bi,bj loops in do_oceanic_phys.F
> >>> The reason is that I am testing some pieces of code
> >>> that require some EXCH (cannot be inside bi,bj loops).
> >>> 
> >>> It should not be too difficult to add bi,bj loops in your version
> >>> of mypackage_calc_rhs.F to do the same things as now.
> >>> But if you are busy now and prefer that I postpone this,
> >>> I can certainly wait some time. Just let me know.
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Jean-Michel
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> >>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> >>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> >> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> >> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-devel mailing list
> > MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel