[Users] Meeting Minutes for 2015-06-22

[Eloisa Bentivegna]

Quoting Ian Hinder <ian.hinder at aei.mpg.de>:

> Putting it in an institution-specific arrangement would do the same.  
>   In fact, it could be worse, as the name of the arrangement would   
> not reflect the content, but the origin of the code, making it   
> harder to find "an elliptic solver", if you didn't know where it was  
>  originally developed.

Well, I didn't suggest this as a definitive solution, but just as a  
temporary parking until we figure out where this code should go, based  
on interest and on what else gets developed. I do realize however that  
temporary solutions have the dangerous tendency to become de-facto  
final.

> I wouldn't object, but it wouldn't be my first choice.  The reason   
> is that software authors tend to move between institutions, and code  
>  is often developed collaboratively between authors from different   
> institutions.  Very little of the code in AEIThorns is now developed  
>  by people at AEI, nor that in LSUThorns by people at LSU, and the   
> TAT arrangements have nobody at TAT at all.  So my preference would   
> still be to have a place where "community" thorns can be placed.  If  
>  this shouldn't be in an arrangement with a Cactus prefix, then I   
> think we should create new arrangements.
>
> $ ls AEIThorns LSUThorns TAT
> AEIThorns:
> ADMMass			PunctureTracker		Trigger
> AEILocalInterp		SystemStatistics
>
> LSUThorns:
> PeriodicCarpet		QuasiLocalMeasures	SummationByParts	Vectors
>
> TAT:
> TATPETSc	TATelliptic
>
> The non-GR-related thorns would all be covered by a "Numerical" and   
> a "Utils" arrangement.  If the Cactus* arrangements are off-limits,   
> and the Einstein* arrangements are not appropriate due to the code   
> not being related to the Einstein equations, then we should have an   
> alternative for this sort of code.  Note: I'm not suggesting that we  
>  actually move the above thorns (though for AEIThorns and LSUThorns   
> we want to stop using the respective SVN servers, so we may take the  
>  opportunity to do so), I'm just illustrating how the thorns would   
> fit into my proposed arrangements.
>
> If Numerical and Utils are too generic, maybe we could have a   
> prefix, such as Community, User, or something like that. But maybe   
> Numerical and Utils are OK.

This suggestion sounds good to me. One could even conceive splitting  
off part of the helper thorn that currently comes with CT_MultiLevel  
to make a GR-specific interface to CT_MultiLevel (which could be  
included in e.g. EinsteinInitialData, just to be visible to users  
looking to solve the Einstein constraints).

Eloisa