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

Tom Black tom.black at noaa.gov
Tue Jul 23 14:58:14 UTC 2013


I agree that removing lines makes for code that is less confusing and 
more readable and is good for us to do.  I think Ratko's referring to 
"good judgement" is the key.  I know I am almost always happy to get rid 
of code that shouldn't be there.  There's an exception to almost every 
rule though and every once in a great while I have some reason to 
comment out the line so I can always see it and not forget about it.  I 
need a very good reason to do that so almost all the time I think 
removing the unwanted code is preferable.


On 07/23/2013 10:48 AM, Ratko Vasic wrote:
> Hi Gerhard,
> we don't have strict policy about commenting/removing lines in NEMS
> (yet). As matter of fact, we don't have any policy on NEMS coding, we
> still rely on developer's good judgement.
> Even in the house we have different styles developed for decades (GFS
> and NMM) and good example is commenting vs. removing of unused lines.
> Ratko
> On 7/23/2013 10:13 AM, Gerhard Theurich wrote:
>> 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
>> picture.
>> Thanks,
>> -Gerhard
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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