correct blade order in fpix for phase1

[dkotlins]

Fix the order of ladders in phase1 pixel forward blades.
The blades now start from 1 at the top.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @dkotlins for CMSSW_7_5_X.

correct blade order in fpix for phase1

It involves the following packages:

DataFormats/SiPixelDetId

@cmsbuild, @civanch, @nclopezo, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @VinInn, @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.
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.
@nclopezo you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[civanch]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 051b539
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-9122/4753/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs unless changes or unless it breaks tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @nclopezo, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0ee7f3c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-9122/7714/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @nclopezo, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

@dkotlins - sorry the delay on this PR - I'm wondering that since we are changing the interface if we should plan ahead and make "phase" a variable with more than two values as to anticipate phase2 pixels?

[venturia]

David, Danek,

eventually the geometry will have to be used to disentangle these cases. I think that since this piece of code is run privately and rarely, it is not the most urgent one to be fixed with that respect and it will benefit of what we will manage to do in other areas, like DQM.

                                 Andrea

On May 30, 2015, at 22:04 , David Lange <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com>
wrote:

@dkotlinshttps://github.com/dkotlins - sorry the delay on this PR - I'm wondering that since we are changing the interface if we should plan ahead and make "phase" a variable with more than two values as to anticipate phase2 pixels?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/9122#issuecomment-107079974.

[davidlange6]

+1

I didn’t realize that DQM had stopped using this code.

On May 30, 2015, at 10:13 PM, venturia notifications@github.com wrote:

David, Danek,

eventually the geometry will have to be used to disentangle these cases. I think that since this piece of code is run privately and rarely, it is not the most urgent one to be fixed with that respect and it will benefit of what we will manage to do in other areas, like DQM.

Andrea

On May 30, 2015, at 22:04 , David Lange <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com>
wrote:

@dkotlinshttps://github.com/dkotlins - sorry the delay on this PR - I'm wondering that since we are changing the interface if we should plan ahead and make "phase" a variable with more than two values as to anticipate phase2 pixels?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/9122#issuecomment-107079974.

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