fix bpix efficiency 76x

[fioriNTU]

No description provided.

[cmsbuild]

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

fix bpix efficiency 76x

It involves the following packages:

DQM/SiPixelMonitorTrack

@cmsbuild, @danduggan, @vanbesien, @deguio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@threus 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.

[deguio]

please remove the obsolete lines instead of commenting them.
moreover I am not sure I understand the change in spacing for the equivalent PR in 74: #11468

[fioriNTU]

Hi Federico,
I would like to leave the commented lines since they should be
reintroduced for the phase I upgrade.
The change in spacing in 74x is due to the fact that in that branch I
have fixed also the indentation of the code, while I didn't fot 75x and 76x.

FF

Il 28/09/2015 11.58, Federico De Guio ha scritto:

please remove the obsolete lines instead of commenting them.
moreover I am not sure I understand the change in spacing for the
equivalent PR in 74: #11468 #11468

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11487 (comment).

---

Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[deguio]

+1
this is fine for me since we are talking about indentation, but normally one should try to keep consistency between branches as much as possible.

[deguio]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0451806
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11487/8434/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11487/8434/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

@fioriNTU - could all of these commented code be removed? It will be there in the git history if you need to recover it someday

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #11487 was updated. @cmsbuild, @danduggan, @vanbesien, @deguio can you please check and sign again.

[deguio]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: ebcb5cf
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11487/8583/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11487/8583/summary.html

[deguio]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1