-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 185
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[94X][Pythia8] Use cms-external/pythia8 repository cms/230 branch to build #5553
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @smuzaffar (Malik Shahzad Muzaffar) for branch IB/CMSSW_9_4_X/gcc630. @cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @mrodozov, @tulamor can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
-1 |
please test for CMSSW_9_4_X |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
-1 Tested at: f45603f
I found compilation error when building: + tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd pythia8230 /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/testBuildDir/tmp/rpm-tmp.3tm5JU: line 39: cd: pythia8230: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/testBuildDir/tmp/rpm-tmp.3tm5JU (%prep) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/testBuildDir/tmp/rpm-tmp.3tm5JU (%prep) You can see the results of the tests here: |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Pull request #5553 was updated. |
-1 |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
+1 |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
@sbein (@alberto-sanchez @agrohsje @efeyazgan @mkirsano @qliphy @SiewYan) this PR shows several changes in wf 10024.0 10042.0 10224.0 10824.0 11624.0 PixelPhase1V/TrackingParticle plots (eg. https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_9_4_X_2020-02-23-0000+a82783/35271/10024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017/PixelPhase1V_TrackingParticle.html) This seems to be against the "no-change rule" in production code for backports. |
In 10_2 there was no discrepancy: |
@agrohsje cms-externals/pythia8#20 is simply a change of one single line to The test in 10_2_X (cms-externals/pythia8#20) compared the tag from This PR (#5553) is in 9_4_X and changes from In other words, the change in 10_2_X is just one single line, while the change in 9_4_X is much larger. If you want to apply only the single-line change to CMSSW_9_4_X I think we need a new tag corresponding to http://home.thep.lu.se/~torbjorn/pythia8/pythia8230.tgz + cms-externals/pythia8#20 [1] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmsdist/blob/IB/CMSSW_10_2_X/gcc700/pythia8.spec |
Hi @silviodonato, thanks for confirming. So this indeed explains the discrepancies. |
@agrohsje I agree we should hear more from SUSY, on whether to just add a single line change: @silviodonato |
For general information: the other changes in the cms/230 branch are mainly bug fixes. These bug fixes are already used in 9_3_X (spec file), so I think it is most consistent to use them also in 9_4_X. |
Ok, if that is no issue for the susy scan, perfect. Let's include the fixes and accept the changes. |
+1 These are the PR integrated in cms/230. In particular, as noted by @qliphy, |
@smuzaffar As discussed in hn, we realize this is not included in 10_2_X yet, can you help on this? Thanks a lot in advance! |
@qliphy you want us to include the latest commit from here: |
@mrodozov That is correct. |
it's running #6097 |
Thanks a lot @mrodozov |
No description provided.