Boosted double SV tagger (74X)

[ferencek]

Backport of #9120

@cvernier

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ferencek (Dinko Ferencek) for CMSSW_7_4_X.

Boosted double SV tagger (74X)

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/PatAlgos
RecoBTag/ImpactParameter
RecoBTag/SecondaryVertex
RecoBTag/SoftLepton

@nclopezo, @cvuosalo, @monttj, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @vadler can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @imarches, @ahinzmann, @acaudron, @mmarionncern, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @schoef, @ferencek, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso, @pvmulder, @TaiSakuma 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.

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

@ferencek Were the externals actually updated in 74X as well?
The code is not running in the jenkins workflows, so the tests will pass.

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[slava77]

@monttj please check this PR and comment if there are remaining issues with an AT signature, or sign otherwise.
Thank you very much.

[monttj]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_4_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[ferencek]

Can we push this one into the next 74X release?

[davidlange6]

@ferencek - has been on my list - but is there an easy way to confirm that this does not change miniAOD?

[slava77]

@davidlange6
#9150 (comment)
More explicit, from tests logs in #9120

step5 in 25202, reusing input from CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-05-16-1100:
- timing is about the same 
- no new modules called

[davidlange6]

Good - this is a subset of the requirements for not changing mini-aod:)

On Jun 19, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Slava Krutelyov notifications@github.com wrote:

@davidlange6
#9150 (comment)
More explicit, from tests logs in #9120

step5 in 25202, reusing input from CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-05-16-1100:

• timing is about the same
• no new modules called

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[ferencek]

@davidlange6, the intention was to leave MiniAOD intact which Slava's logs confirm.

[davidlange6]

@ferencek - ok thanks - i fear little that gets tested confirms this so I was looking for confirmation on the intent of the PR