[Mitgcm-support] RE: I try to follow the procedure

[mitgcm-support at dev.mitgcm.org]

sounds good - but no sneaking in any extra filter schemes
or bottom boundary layer parameterisations... :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Michel Campin [mailto:jmc at gulf.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:16 PM
To: cnh at plume.mit.edu
Cc: support at mitgcm.org
Subject: RE: I try to follow the procedure


Hi Chris,

> Why do we need check_config in release1?

let's take an example:

In release1_beta1 code, with this set up:
in data:
exeacConserv=.TRUE.
in CPP_OPTIONS.h
#undef EXACT_CONSERV

the model runs, gives wrong results (that do not correspond to 
exeacConserv=FALSE & undef neither to exeacConserv=TRUE & defined)
and gives no warning.

It seems important that for the release we avoid this kind of
dangerous bad use of parameter/option.
And regarding other checks that have been recently added (e.g. 
retired parameters), this config_check appears necessary.

Jean-Michel