Re: TGeant3 geant321 version number

Hi Federico & Ian,
I'm wondering if you could summarize the status of the re-sync as described below.
Thanks!
-Sue

> Hello Susan,
> this fix seems to me nonsensical, but I understand the interest of
> your mail. Ian, would you agree to do one more sync? Best,
>
> Federico Carminati
> CERN-PH
> 1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> Tel: +41 22 76 74959
> Fax: +41 22 76 79480
> Mobile: +41 76 487 4843
>
> On 5 Nov 2007, at 03:17, Susan Kasahara wrote:
>
>> Hi Federico,
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>>> we have several improvements (at least we do hope so) that we
>>> never ported back into the official 321 of the cern library. There
>>> was a synchronisation some time (2 years) ago, but then we diverged
>>> again. The file gversc.inc may not be meaningful any more, thanks for
>>> pointing this out. We might resynchronise, however when you say that
>>> there are differences, how can you be sure that these are due to the
>>> transport and not to the geometry? This is indeed the most likely
>>> cause.
>>
>> I think it's important to synchronize the two because otherwise
>> it's hard to claim that we are using Geant3 for the physics
>> simulation.
>> I am still exploring the differences between CERNLIB's Geant3 and
>> Geant3 as
>> implemented in the geant3_vmc distribution. What I've noticed so
>> far is that
>> some (most) of the differences are in the direction of improvements
>> applied to
>> geant3_vmc but not yet imported to CERNLIB's Geant3, as expected
>> and as you
>> suggest. But there also appear to be some cases in
>> which a change was made to CERNLIB's Geant3 but not geant3_vmc.
>> For example, in the CERNLIB distribution of Geant3.21/14, the gphys/
>> gdray.F routine
>> has this:
>> CC PEELS=SQRT(ABS((EELS+AMASS)*TELS))
>> PEELS=SQRT( PELS(1)**2 + PELS(2)**2 + PELS(3)**2)
>> whereas the geant3_vmc version of the same routine has this:
>> PEELS=SQRT(ABS((EELS+AMASS)*TELS))
>> The latter corresponds to what appeared in CERNLIB Geant3.21/11
>> packaged with cernlib
>> version 98, so it appears that an improvement that was added to
>> CERNLIB Geant3.21
>> has not been implemented in the geant3_vmc version.
>> A formal resynchronization would take care of these differences.
>> Thanks & best regards,
>> -Sue
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> we have several improvements (at least we do hope so) that we
>>> never ported back into the official 321 of the cern library. There
>>> was a synchronisation some time (2 years) ago, but then we diverged
>>> again. The file gversc.inc may not be meaningful any more, thanks for
>>> pointing this out. We might resynchronise, however when you say that
>>> there are differences, how can you be sure that these are due to the
>>> transport and not to the geometry? This is indeed the most likely
>>> cause.
>>>
>>> Federico Carminati
>>> CERN-PH
>>> 1211 Geneva 23
>>> Switzerland
>>> Tel: +41 22 76 74959
>>> Fax: +41 22 76 79480
>>> Mobile: +41 76 487 4843
>>>
>>> On 28 Oct 2007, at 06:50, Susan Kasahara wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi vmc team,
>>>> We've noticed very minor differences between the use of TGeant3 and
>>>> using
>>>> geant3.21/14 from cernlib outside of the VMC framework. This has
>>>> raised
>>>> a question which is "what is the sub-version of geant3.21 used as
>>>> part
>>>> of TGeant3?" Or should we expect that the geant321 code used in
>>>> TGeant3 has
>>>> diverged from the original cernlib source, so that this question of
>>>> which
>>>> sub-version is not meaningful.
>>>> I've noticed that the sub-version of geant321 in TGeant3 as
>>>> determined from
>>>> the package's geant321/gversc.inc is geant3.21/11. It appears
>>>> however that
>>>> this sub-version number hasn't changed in some time.
>>>> More generally, can you please describe the policy regarding the
>>>> updates
>>>> to TGeant3's geant3.21?
>>>> For example, are all changes to the most recent cernlib version of
>>>> geant3.21
>>>> included in TGeant3's version, but TGeant3's version may also
>>>> include
>>>> additional updates that go beyond cernlib's standard version?
>>>> Thanks very much for your time.
>>>> -Sue
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 26 2008 - 12:05:32 CET