replace most LinkDef.h files with XML selection files

[wmtan]

There are now 21 remaining LinkDef.h files used to generate ROOT dictionaries. It has been decided to replace these files with XML selection files. This PR replaces 16 of the 21 files, which are those that are straightforward to replace. The five LinkDef files not touched by this PR are those that will require more effort due to technical complications.
These five LinkDef files are not touched in this PR:
CalibCalorimetry/EcalLaserAnalyzer/plugins/LinkDef.h
CalibCalorimetry/EcalLaserAnalyzer/test/MusEcal/src/LinkDef.h
Calibration/HcalCalibAlgos/src/CalibrationHcalCalibAlgosLinkDef.h
IORawData/HcalTBInputService/src/CDFROOTLinkDef.h
PhysicsTools/TagAndProbe/src/PhysicsToolsTagAndProbeLinkDef.h

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @wmtan for CMSSW_7_6_X.

replace most LinkDef.h files with XML selection files

It involves the following packages:

Alignment/CocoaAnalysis
Alignment/CocoaDaq
Alignment/CocoaFit
Alignment/LaserAlignment
CalibCalorimetry/EcalCorrelatedNoiseAnalysisAlgos
CalibMuon/DTCalibration
Calibration/EcalTBTools
CondFormats/JetMETObjects
DPGAnalysis/SiStripTools
DataFormats/HeavyIonEvent
MuonAnalysis/MomentumScaleCalibration
RecoLuminosity/LumiProducer
RecoVertex/BeamSpotProducer
SimMuon/DTDigitizer
SimMuon/Neutron
Validation/RecoVertex

@civanch, @diguida, @cvuosalo, @mdhildreth, @monttj, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @cerminar, @deguio, @slava77, @ggovi, @vadler, @mmusich, @vanbesien, @danduggan can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @TaiSakuma, @yslai, @rappoccio, @argiro, @threus, @venturia, @mmarionncern, @azsigmon, @ahinzmann, @jhgoh, @jdolen, @cerati, @mandrenguyen, @yetkinyilmaz, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @frmeier, @rovere, @VinInn, @bellan, @nhanvtran, @schoef, @mschrode, @mmusich, @dgulhan, @apfeiffer1, @makortel, @istaslis, @mariadalfonso this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[wmtan]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: f4dc71c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11661/8655/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11661/8655/summary.html

[civanch]

+1

[deguio]

+1

[slava77]

+1

for #11661 f4dc71c

• changes look OK
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with baseline show no differences

[wmtan]

@diguida, @monttj, @franzoni, @cerminar, @ggovi, @vadler, @mmusich
Please sign or provide a reason for not signing.

[davidlange6]

@cmsbuild, please test
(assuming tests show no regression, we will merge as it seems there are no further comments after Bills request)

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/8956/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: f4dc71c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11661/8956/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11661/8956/summary.html

[davidlange6]

hum - did we pick up a recent non-reproducibility in genparticles? There are differences in the packed gen candidates

https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_7_6_X_2015-10-16-1100+11661/10712/50202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU50+RECOUP15_PU50+HARVESTUP15_PU50/ParticleFlow_packedGenParticlesValidation_CompWithGenParticles.html

[davidlange6]

cmsbuild, please test

[Dr15Jones]

@davidlange6 I believe I had recently changed PackedGenParticles to be thread safe. Maybe something went wrong with reading?

[davidlange6]

yes - looks like it, as the comparisons in the original PR are also not good - though I don’t see the bug..

#11706 (comment)

On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Chris Jones [email protected] wrote:

@davidlange6 I believe I had recently changed PackedGenParticles to be thread safe. Maybe something went wrong with reading?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[Dr15Jones]

I have unit tests for the classes in the original pull request. Unfortunately, I'm at the airport and will be boarding not to long.

[davidlange6]

@Dr15Jones - Monday is soon enough. Thanks

but meanwhile I will merge this PR - as the issue I raised looks to be unrelated.

[Dr15Jones]

@wmtan Bill, I'm in a workshop for the next two days. Could you look into the problems reports by David with PackedGenCandidate?

[wmtan]

@Dr15Jones Will do Monday. Where is the workshop?