backport of "PF cluster isolation for muons + TimeCleaned RecHit producer."

[HuguesBrun]

This PR is the back-port in 72 of the PR #6266. To prevent the merge conflict to happen, it is made on the top of #5964
This PR will add the producers and filters to have the PF cluster isolation on muons at HLT + a filter on the ECAL recHits timing.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @HuguesBrun (Hugues BRUN) for CMSSW_7_2_X.

backport of "PF cluster isolation for muons + TimeCleaned RecHit producer."

It involves the following packages:

Calibration/EcalAlCaRecoProducers
DataFormats/RecoCandidate
HLTrigger/Egamma
HLTrigger/HLTfilters
HLTrigger/special
RecoEgamma/EgammaHLTProducers
RecoMuon/L3MuonIsolationProducer

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @diguida, @fwyzard, @cerminar, @Martin-Grunewald, @nclopezo, @rcastello, @StoyanStoynev, @slava77, @mmusich can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@battibass, @abbiendi, @argiro, @bellan, @lgray, @trocino, @bachtis, @rociovilar 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.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: be88cde
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6470/968/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6470/968/summary.html

[Martin-Grunewald]

RECO, what is holding up your signature on this PR? This is a backport fo #6266 ...

[davidlange6]

Seems the PR changed only yesterday, no?

On Nov 26, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Martin Grunewald <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

RECO, what is holding up your signature on this PR? This is a backport fo #6266#6266 ...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/6470#issuecomment-64518854.

[Martin-Grunewald]

....yes, due to a rebase because it does not get integrated....

[perrotta]

@StoyanStoynev wrote in the other PR (#6538) about this one:

@ktf would you wait few hours for the new release - Slava was testing this PR so he'd better comment. Alternatively I can do it but he would know most of the details here.

Hopefully, Slava will not need a few hours for it: this PR is identical to #6266, already merged in 73X, and also identical to the one reco already signed here one week ago (modulo the last rebase)...

[ktf]

Ok.

On Wed Nov 26 2014 at 11:16:42 AM perrotta notifications@github.com wrote:

@StoyanStoynev https://github.com/StoyanStoynev wrote in the other PR (
#6538 #6538) about this one:

@ktf https://github.com/ktf would you wait few hours for the new
release - Slava was testing this PR so he'd better comment. Alternatively I
can do it but he would know most of the details here.

Hopefully, Slava will not need a few hours for it: this PR is identical to
#6266 #6266, already merged in 73X,
and also identical to the one reco already signed here one week ago (modulo
the last rebase)...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6470 (comment).

[slava77]

+1

for #6470 5d13be0
the code increments are the same as already signed in #6470 as of be88cde

[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). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @nclopezo, @ktf, @smuzaffar