<p dir="ltr"><br>
On 18 Aug 2014 15:41, "Erik Schnetter" <<a href="mailto:schnetter@cct.lsu.edu">schnetter@cct.lsu.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Frank Loeffler <<a href="mailto:knarf@cct.lsu.edu">knarf@cct.lsu.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>> I might be wrong, but didn't we want GRHydro+GRHydro_Initdata as one<br>
>> "GRHydro" arrangement?<br>
><br>
><br>
> I don't recall this decision. Do you have a pointer to the discussion?<br>
><br>
> I know that it is difficult to place GRHydro_InitData into a particular arrangement, but at the same time, reducing the number of arrangements is also important.</p>
<p dir="ltr">As far as I remember this was suggested because GRHydro is internally a git repository, so it doesn't seem sensible to convert it to separate svn repositories only to convert back to git and merge again. I think the suggestion was to instead just directly use the GRHydro git repository.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Barry</p>