[Ncep.list.nems.announce] NEMS update: nems ticket #43

Gerhard Theurich theurich at sourcespring.net
Tue Jul 23 14:13:33 UTC 2013

Hi, this is a general question for everybody about something I have been 
trying to understand for a while now.

It seems that the policy in NEMS is favoring "commenting out" over 
"removing" questionable sections of code. It seems cleaner to me to just 
remove sections of code that are not used any longer or appear to be 
incorrect. And since everything is under revision control, nothing is 
really ever lost anyway, and can be brought back easily. Just wondering 
what the NEMS coding policy is with respect to removing sections of 
code. Specifically with the change in gfs_qsub.IN under this ticket, I 
had expected the questionable line to be deleted. I am just thinking of 
the long term readability of the system, but may not be seeing the full 


On 07/23/2013 06:29 AM, Jun Wang - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
> Hi, all;
> I would like to commit a fix in gfs zeus job script. This fix is to
> avoid nems executable running twice in gfs regression tests on zeus.
> Above fix has no impact on regression test results, no impact on
> regression test on other machines.
> The code can be viewed on zeus at:
> /scratch1/portfolios/NCEPDEV/nems/noscrub/Jun.Wang/nems/trunk
> M       job/regression_tests/RegressionTests_zeus.log
> M       job/regression_tests/Compile_zeus.log
> M       job/regression_tests/gfs_qsub.IN
> NEMS ticket is:
> https://svnemc.ncep.noaa.gov/trac/nems/ticket/43
> I am planning to commit the code tomorrow morning. Thanks.
> Jun
> _______________________________________________
> Ncep.list.nems.announce mailing list
> Ncep.list.nems.announce at lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov
> https://lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/ncep.list.nems.announce

More information about the Ncep.list.nems.announce mailing list