Remove -1 from ClassVersionID field in selection rules

[davidlt]

-1 means that the class is unversioned and is supposed to only be
used internally. It is 'illegal' for user to explicitly use this value.

Both classes were not modified since their were introduced in CMSSW. For
safety reasons I picked ClassVersionID as 3.

Signed-off-by: David Abdurachmanov David.Abdurachmanov@cern.ch

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @davidlt for CMSSW_8_0_X.

Remove -1 from ClassVersionID field in selection rules

It involves the following packages:

DataFormats/EgammaCandidates
SimDataFormats/PileupSummaryInfo

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Sam-Harper, @lgray 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' or '@cmsbuild, please test' 'please test with cms-sw/cmsdist#PR' 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

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9639/console

[mdhildreth]

+1

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 467ebbc
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12362/9639/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12362/9639/summary.html

[slava77]

+1

for #12362 467ebbc

• changes are as discussed by email
• jenkins tests pass:
  • DQM comparisons show no differences (large set of differences in 25202.0 can be ignored, see below)
  • validate.C fwlite comparisons show no differences but they fail to check values related to the changed PflowIDVariables (the script loads the old file first)
• local test in CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-11-10-2300 using 134.802 and appropriate order of loading the files shows that both new and old PflowIDVariables can be read in the same process and there are no differences

in wflow 25202 there are a lot of differences, which appear to be coming from a DAS-related issue: minibias files served are different in step2:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12362/9639/runTheMatrix-results/25202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25/step2_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25.log
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/ib-baseline-tests/CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-11-10-1100/slc6_amd64_gcc493/-GenuineIntel/matrix-results/25202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25/step2_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25.log

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1