Revert new cpe

[nickmccoll]

This PR fixes the issues described here: https://hypernews.cern.ch/HyperNews/CMS/get/relval/3159/18/1.html

It changes the default strip CPE to the original version due to an unexpected drop in tracking efficiency.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @nickmccoll for CMSSW_7_2_X.

Revert new cpe

It involves the following packages:

RecoLocalTracker/SiStripRecHitConverter

@cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @StoyanStoynev, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@forthommel, @yduhm, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @gbenelli, @rovere, @VinInn, @jlagram, @gpetruc, @cerati, @threus, @venturia 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.
@nclopezo you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[cerati]

This PR fixes the issues described here: https://hypernews.cern.ch/HyperNews/CMS/get/relval/3159/18/1.html

[StoyanStoynev]

@nickmccoll please provide a proper description to the PR.

[cerati]

Hi @StoyanStoynev, which other information do you need? This PR just reverts one parameter that is responsible for the differences spotted in validation of pre6 (see link above)

[StoyanStoynev]

@cerati You are not saying the current description which is "No description provided." is the proper one, are you? We need these for documentation purposes (at least). One can refer to the PR that is reverted and give link to the reasoning (the one in the comment). It is good to actually summarize the reasoning and to say what the expected effect from the PR is.

[cerati]

I guess only Nick has access to the description field, if this is what is needed. This PR reverts 5151 (keeping the code in release, it will be used later on, after more tests/developments are done). Please start the review process.

[StoyanStoynev]

I am trying to merge this PR with the latest IB, CMSSW_7_2_X_2014-09-26-0800, and I get
450 files changed, 20362 insertions(+), 66485 deletions(-)
Certainly not right. What is the PR based on, can you try yourself with the latest (available) IB?

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: fd72d91
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5581/1/summary.html

[slava77]

@VinInn @cerati @rovere
sigh.
How did it happen that the incremental prevalidation was showing an improvement without a loss in efficiency?

Were there any other changes (like to the MTV that would make the validation/signal association sensitive to the hit uncertainties)?

[VinInn]

On 26 Sep, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Slava Krutelyov notifications@github.com wrote:

@VinInn @cerati @rovere
sigh.
How did it happen that the incremental prevalidation was showing an improvement without a loss in efficiency?
nobody looked at qcd3TeV

[slava77]

@Martin-Grunewald
Martin, after all, what is the current selection in the HLT configurations for this parameter?
Was it all left to use the legacy?
(at some point I got a feeling that one of the last changes in pre7 was going to start using it).
Please clarify

[slava77]

I guess I learned my lesson: better follow the policy of no tracking changes in the last open pre.

[slava77]

+1

for #5581 fd72d91

tested in CMSSW_7_2_X_2014-09-24-1400 (test area test5581; it was more convenient to test in an older area)

This seems like a case of Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
So, reverting to the good old setup sounds more appropriate for 72X.

What are we going to do in 73X?
I could guess that we should keep the new CPE in 73X and try to improve downstream, in places where the problems for efficiency arise.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_2_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). @nclopezo can you please take care of it?

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: fd72d91
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5581/1084/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5581/1084/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_2_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). @nclopezo can you please take care of it?