hi tancredi,
i hope you don't have to be bitter. chi and i have been doing the
major development for BlastLib2, and have been in constant
communication, and usually in accord. also aaron has been discussing
the geometry with me all along, and most issues have been resolved in a
timely manner.
i am still under the impression that the analysis meetings have been
meant to present analysis results to the rest of the collaboration, and
divy up remaining tasks. we have been getting together in 'working
meetings', usually in the counting bay, to resolve these trivial
compatibility issues, and to review the performance of the
reconstruction. plus, most of our development is now done at bates,
where we can communicate in person.
ps. the version 3 geometry is almost ready to be merged in. i just
have left to convert the ~150 geometry graphics calls in nsed, and then
do a finaly debugging. (of course it will only work with new wc
calibrations).
--chris
Tancredi Botto wrote:
>I don't want to sound bitter, but it is obvious that people that
>are working on codes should meet periodically and discuss the issues
>of the day. This regularly does not happen.
>
>That was the point of analysis meetings. There is where you can ask
>these questions and where such coordination can easily occur. E-mail
>communication is of course fine, but there is no point in complaining
>about things that could have been easily found out by discussing in
>person. Unless we pretend to have telepathic abilities and are able
>to guess what each other is doing.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST