[Users] Meeting Minutes for 2015-06-22
bentivegna at cct.lsu.edu
Wed Jun 24 15:39:48 CDT 2015
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
> 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
> ADMMass PunctureTracker Trigger
> AEILocalInterp SystemStatistics
> PeriodicCarpet QuasiLocalMeasures SummationByParts Vectors
> 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).
More information about the Users