Build Script Option for Different version of WWM about schism

[jreniel]

@jamal919 I'm glad to know that we are on agreement. Because we're just starting up the git, and I am a newcomer to the SCHISM community, I was a bit afraid of what would be the response. But I am glad that it seems the ship is steering well. But back to the main discussion (the following are just ideas, don't take them as absolutes)...

First I have to ask, are there any plans to integrate the La Rochelle branch into the trunk at some point? If the answer is yes, then I suppose compilation steps will change, so this is a semi major version change of schism, and you may start tracking this via a feature branch on the main repo (if collaborative tracking is expected), or a fork (if you're flying this one solo). Then when the the La Rochelle branch gets merged, we can do a PR to a test branch and finally merge the test branch to the master, along with a semi major version number increase and new tag.

If the La Rochelle branch is expected to diverge, then perhaps the schism master should not consider it at all. Any schism version interested in using the La Rochelle version should fork schism and name it schism_la_rochelle or something else. But the point is that La Rochelle, as of now, is a fork, until it becomes part of the trunk.

That being said, I would love to see all these modules be brought to git. We can work with SVN trunks, but git based development would be beneficial I think for everyone. In any case, I'm available to help out with those migrations as well if the parties involved are interested.

[huyquangtranaus]

Hi @jamal919 ,

I believe you can do it easily. In the src/Makefile, you just change:
#Search path
VPATH = Core/ Driver/ Hydro/ EcoSim/ COSINE/ Sediment/ Sed2d/
WWMIII/ ICM/ TIMOR/ FIB/ Ice/ Fabm/
by:
#Search path
VPATH = Core/ Driver/ Hydro/ EcoSim/ COSINE/ Sediment/ Sed2d/
WWMIII.R3012/ ICM/ TIMOR/ FIB/ Ice/ Fabm/

or to whatever you like.

[jamal919]

Thanks @huyquangt, I understood the change you suggested. The problem is WWM.3012 bundled with current releases does not work directly with this change, because the files to be compiled are not same for the two releases of WWM.

[jreniel]

Drifting here a bit on the philosophical side... The WWM branch you are referring to is not yet official, correct? The SCHISM master branch should only support official releases of the module. If you are interested in support for other branches in other modules (which are to be treated as forks in git) what you could do is fork the SCHISM repo and modify it so this branch is supported. In the future, when the module branch is integrated into the main repo, then we can merge your branch to the master to support officially these new features. In general, the master branch should only support what is tested. Everything else is up to us, the developers, to work out on our forks so we can prepare the modifications needed for future merging. @jamal919 @huyquangt @josephzhang8 @water-e Please take note of this thread and comment, because this is precisely the kind of situation that needs to be communicated so we can all have effective collaboration. Please post your thoughts and opinions.

[jreniel]

@jamal919
Alternatively, you can create a branch on the main schism repo, but as long as the La Rochelle branch is not merged to the WWM trunk, we are dealing with what is to be treated as a completely separate and different software, and we are simply inviting divergence. This is why I'd recommend to work on this as a fork, because technically, the La Rochelle branch as of now is a WWM fork, and therefore a completely different software. We cannot think of this as interchangeable if the branch in question is not backwards compatible.

[jamal919]

@jreniel, thanks for your thoughts. I can not agree more with your comments. And yes, as far as I have understood the La Rochelle version is not official, but added as a separate branch to facilitate the continuation of the development they are pursusing by @josephzhang8.

Ideal scenario is of course to have a single implementation of a single module, not two as it appear now. Since the user/developer community of WWM-SCHISM can safely be assumed to be smaller than the SCHISM-Core this issue will probably persists for some more time. Any idea or roadmap for unification is very much appreciated, of course.

[jreniel]

Closing issue since it seems we are on strategic agreement.