Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Choosing model component versions #22

Closed
aekiss opened this issue Apr 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

Choosing model component versions #22

aekiss opened this issue Apr 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor

aekiss commented Apr 28, 2023

We should put some thought into how we choose component versions.

I suggest for initial testing we should match what @dougiesquire's CIME-built executables used, to see if we can resolve all issues like #21. When that is all working we should consider upgrading to newer versions.

Any comments/objections?

@micaeljtoliveira
Copy link
Contributor

micaeljtoliveira commented Jul 23, 2023

I suggest for initial testing we should match what @dougiesquire's CIME-built executables used, to see if we can resolve all issues like #21. When that is all working we should consider upgrading to newer versions.

After bumping into a similar issue (see #31), I would strongly support the suggestion of starting with exactly the same versions as @dougiesquire's CIME-built executables. This is straightforward to do, except for the CDEPS component, as recent changes to support JRA55-do introduce some conflicts.

Regarding the strategy to update, I suggest that we keep following CESM for while, at least until we need to incorporate new features that are not available yet in CESM.

@aekiss @dougiesquire What do you think?

@micaeljtoliveira micaeljtoliveira added the question Further information is requested label Jul 23, 2023
@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

aekiss commented Jul 24, 2023

By "following CESM" do you mean keeping up to date with the latest CESM, i.e. a strategy like this?

  1. build exes (MOM6-CICE6, then MOM6-CICE6-WW3 and CICE6-WW3) with exactly the same component versions as @dougiesquire's CIME-built executables, and working configs with the same CESM inputs
  2. configs (MOM6-CICE6, then MOM6-CICE6-WW3 and CICE6-WW3) with exes from step 1, but inputs from ACCESS-OM2
  3. set up CI
  4. upgrade to components used in latest CESM; get exes and configs working again
  5. upgrade to more recent model components if needed for new features

@ezhilsabareesh8 - sounds like you may need to modify your JRA55-do support to be compatible with step 2.

@micaeljtoliveira
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry for not been entirely clear. What I meant be "following CESM" was only regarding step 4. That would be assuming we agree on the starting point (steps 1-2).

Regarding the starting point, we could also create a version that is identical to the CESM version used by @dougiesquire and tag it in the repo, but only use it for reference. Then, immediately update CDEPS, leaving everything else unchanged.
That way the JRA55-do support would not need to be changed.

@COSIMA COSIMA locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 24, 2023
@micaeljtoliveira micaeljtoliveira converted this issue into discussion #49 Jul 24, 2023

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants