Merging VBF_UL branch against master about klubanalysis HOT 15 CLOSED

Given that ythe EFT branch was forked from VBF_UL (AFAIK),

It's actually the opposite

from klubanalysis.

I don't have any strong feeling against that. We can archive the old master branch in any case I suppose

from klubanalysis.

Hi Bruno,
I think that master branch has never been used since the beginning of the non-resonant analysis in 2019. It was probably used for the 2016 analysis but Francesco can add more details on this topic. In the end I also don't have strong opinions on merging/rebasing.

from klubanalysis.

@portalesHEP Archiving is not required, as the commits are stored and we can create a new branch from any commit (as long as the history is not rewritten). I could however add a tag to the current last commit on master for easier access.

from klubanalysis.

Hi Bruno! I think creating a tag is a good idea (it was done for some steps of the 2016 analysis, but never for the Run2 non-resonant analysis unfortunately 😞 )!

From my point of view merginv VBF_UL into master is a good idea, so +1 from me.

PS. In the VBF_Legacy branch me and @jonamotta are still making a few updates, mainly related to EFT and limit computation, once that is completed we will port everything in VBF_UL or in master in case you have already merged them.

from klubanalysis.

@portalesHEP Any suggestion for the name of the tag?

I think the master branch was last used for the early Run 2 (=2016) analysis, so a good tag could be HHbbtautau_36fb. Here again I don't have a very strong opinion, so if anybody wishes for a different name it is fine

from klubanalysis.

@francescobrivio I typed my message before seeing yours ;)
If you prefer, I can do it now; just might be simpler to wait until #280 (and #279 ?) is merged.

from klubanalysis.

Hi Bruno,

• There are actually two PRs to VBF_legacy: #279 and #280
  • which btw are in conflict (this is known and I will fix it by merging 280 first, merge locally into my area, resolve conflicts and merge 279 after)
• Despite the status of 280 and 279, the branches VBF_UL and VBF_legacy have diverged previously, so "manual merging" will be needed in any case 😄

That's why I believe the solution I proposed in #286 (comment) is the best at the moment!

from klubanalysis.

Tag HHbbtautau_36fb added.

from klubanalysis.

I could however add a tag to the current last commit on master for easier access.

Sounds good to me

from klubanalysis.

@portalesHEP Any suggestion for the name of the tag?

from klubanalysis.

Yeah, it is high time we do this.
The only thing is that, as @francescobrivio mentioned, maybe we can wait to port the EFT updates to the UL branch and then go for the rebase.
But in general, +1.

from klubanalysis.

@jonamotta We could rebase VBF_UL into master already and then the EFT updates into master directly. Given that ythe EFT branch was forked from VBF_UL (AFAIK), the two approaches are equivalent. What do you think?

from klubanalysis.

Louis is right: there is no official "EFT branch" atm, we just pushed the EFT updates to the VBF_Legacy branch.
So Bruno please go ahead with merging VBF_UL into master now, and we (me and Jona) will take care of porting everything to master later on.

from klubanalysis.

After discussion at LLR, let us wait for the current open PR to be merged with VBF_legacy #280 , so that all new modifications can be included in master in one go.

from klubanalysis.