put back RealisticHI2011Collision

[franzoni]

• as the command says, restore consistency internally to VtxSmeared.py
• RealisticHI2011Collision is the beamspot for run2, as per HIN convenor @inugent
• agreed with @yetkinyilmaz that RealisticHI2011Collision needs to be put back, see Adjustments for using MixingModule for Heavy Ion simulations #6982

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @franzoni (Giovanni Franzoni) for CMSSW_7_4_X.

put back RealisticHI2011Collision

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/StandardSequences

@cmsbuild, @franzoni, @nclopezo, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @appeltel, @makortel, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @cerati, @dgulhan 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.

[yetkinyilmaz]

Hi.
This fix was already put into the existing PR:
#7287

On 1/23/15 5:31 PM, Giovanni Franzoni wrote:

• as the command says, restore consistency internally to VtxSmeared.py
• RealisticHI2011Collision is the beamspot for run2, as per HIN
  convenor @inugent https://github.com/inugent
• agreed with @yetkinyilmaz https://github.com/yetkinyilmaz that
  RealisticHI2011Collision needs to be put back, see Adjustments for using MixingModule for Heavy Ion simulations #6982
  Adjustments for using MixingModule for Heavy Ion simulations #6982

---

    You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#7343

    Commit Summary

• put back RealisticHI2011Collision

  File Changes
  

• M Configuration/StandardSequences/python/VtxSmeared.py
  https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/7343/files#diff-0 (1)

  Patch Links:
  

• https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/7343.patch

• https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/7343.diff

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7343.

[franzoni]

the fix is needed in pre6.
Will 7287 be merged, by then ?
Provided the line is put back in the same place, no conflict expected.

[yetkinyilmaz]

We really need 7287 in pre6. It is signed by Simulations, who is the
primary correspondant.
We need signs from reco, analysis, dqm, operations, for whom the PR has
very little relation.

On 1/23/15 5:35 PM, Giovanni Franzoni wrote:

the fix is needed in pre6.
Will 7287 be merged, by then ?
Provided the line is put back in the same place, no conflict expected.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7343 (comment).

[franzoni]

Test 140.0 is now back happy. Consistency restored.
I hold off till Monday and let release managers comment before auto-signing. In my view, we just gain by fixing an inconsistency and in no way damaging #7287.

[davidlange6]

since the commits are different, I would expect this PR to cause #7287 to be unmergable. We should manage to have #7287 signed shortly.

[slava77]

#7287 actually merges fine on top of #7343
at least in CMSSW_7_4_X_2015-01-23-0200

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: abb872f
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-7343/2095/summary.html

[yetkinyilmaz]

#7287 is merged, so I think we can
close this now.

On 1/23/15 6:51 PM, Giovanni Franzoni wrote:

Test 140.0 is now back happy. Consistency restored.
I hold off till Monday and let release managers comment before
auto-signing. In my view, we just gain by fixing an inconsistency and
in no way damaging #7287 #7287.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7343 (comment).