Alternative way to populate g-w fix/gsi #1594
Replies: 10 comments 1 reply
-
Work for this issue will be done in
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
One drawback of the above is that If the above approach is adopted, ASCII GSI fix files currently in |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@RussTreadon-NOAA |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You are right. ASCII GSI-fix files are not permanently fixed. The same is true of the binary fix files. For example, both |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes, most binaries are updated during their lifetime. The question here is the frequency at which they get updated. The The more frequent update ascii files e.g. I am sure there is a happy medium where we can get to where the frequent development as well as longer maintenance can be achieved. Is there a way to separate out the largely stagnated, from the frequently evolving? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks @aerorahul for converting this into a g-w discussion. Hopefully others join the conversation so this moves forward. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Since this is now a discussion and not an issue. I'll delete I don't want to keep resynching my fork with the head of g-w |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@RussTreadon-NOAA |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm not keen on the way things are currently done but since no comments have been made in this discussion since 5/10/2023 I will close it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Description
An alternative approach to populating g-w fix/gsi is proposed with the goal of improving consistency between stand-alone GSI development and subsequent cycled tests. This issue is a follow on to discussion found in g-w issue #1550.
Tasks
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions