- User Since
- Jul 3 2018, 2:12 PM (133 w, 3 d)
Thu, Jan 21
Wed, Jan 13
Looks great, thanks Michal!
Tue, Jan 12
I'm afraid I don't have time right now to really fully review the physics. But hopefully your tests should have covered that. If we think it's necessary, perhaps we can ask the analysts who were requesting this to do some further validations?
I've added a follow-up on the issue of the various double* arguments - in short I'm also not a fan but let's leave them as they are for now.
I've also added one other small question on initialisation of member variables.
I don't see any other problems.
Mon, Jan 11
Fri, Jan 8
Wed, Jan 6
Thanks for these improvements. They look fine to me.
Dec 16 2020
Dec 10 2020
Thanks very much for this @johndan. It looks good.
I think it would just be good to take the opportunity while we're at it to allow any of the parameters to float.
We should also include the name of the propagator in the name of the parameters so that if we have more than one K-matrix in a given fit we don't get identically named parameters appearing - this will cause problems with the sim-fit for example.
See the inline comments for details.
Many thanks @kreps, looks good to me.
Dec 3 2020
- Update release notes
Dec 2 2020
OK, good to go now, I'll take care of landing it later on.
- Reference Maniphest task in release notes
Nov 27 2020
Nov 26 2020
Nov 23 2020
Nov 20 2020
Nov 18 2020
Oct 30 2020
Hi @jback, many thanks for the changes and apologies for the delay in responding to them.
I think this looks good to go now.
Unless @kreps has any comments I think you can go ahead and "land" it onto master.
Oct 15 2020
Oct 13 2020
Oct 8 2020
Oct 6 2020
Oct 2 2020
Hi @jback, sorry it's taken me so long to review this.
You can find here some technical points.
I'll try to compare the physics against the referenced paper next week, although I guess this was checked during the LHCb review?
You mention also testing it using testDecayModel but I can't find the json file(s) for this model. Could you include them in the next revision?
Sep 21 2020
Sep 18 2020
Sep 17 2020
Sep 16 2020
Sep 14 2020
Sep 9 2020
I suppose at least 'worker' should imply someone being paid for their services.
I think the first 3 you list don't really work very well in this context (as you say). However, 'coordinator/worker' describes rather well the relationship of the objects here.
A few alternatives to replace 'master' along the same lines could be 'manager', 'director', or 'controller'.
But I'm struggling to come up with other good alternatives to 'worker', which could maybe still be taken to be a bit pejorative? Maybe 'runner'? Any other ideas?