Changes between Version 82 and Version 83 of DevelopmentIssues


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 20, 2012, 12:22:21 PM (12 years ago)
Author:
Olivier Mattelaer
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • DevelopmentIssues

    v82 v83  
    1010== To fix before v2.0 release ==
    1111
    12   general | V.H. | Having MadSpin available in the beta release:: We already bragg about it on the aMCatNLO webpage and anyway I think we cannot afford to say we don't support decay chains at NLO any longer and we don't provide a way to decay final states other than a flat shower. EDIT: Pierre told us it will not be possible to have a functional neat merge of MadSpin in aMC@NLO in short time, so that the release should not be delayed any further because of this.
     12
    1313
    1414 general |V.H.| Harmonize the way the shower is performed so to have MG@LO generating events which can be showered with the same HERWIG as used in aMCatNLO::
    1515
    16  ? |M.Z| rewrite ask_run_configuration function in amcatnlo_run_interface as the one in madevent_interface (or better, unify them) ::
    1716
    18  ? |M.Z| write acceptance tests for amcatnlo ::
     17 ? |M.Z| write acceptance/parralel tests for amcatnlo ::
    1918
    2019 4 | O.M. | Generate some html output for checking the generation of the fortran code and of the output. ::
    … …  
    7776
    7877== Fixed issues ==
     78
     79 ? |M.Z| rewrite ask_run_configuration function in amcatnlo_run_interface as the one in madevent_interface (or better, unify them) ::
     80'''[ Fixed ] | O.M. |'''
     81
     82  general | V.H. | Having MadSpin available in the beta release:: We already bragg about it on the aMCatNLO webpage and anyway I think we cannot afford to say we don't support decay chains at NLO any longer and we don't provide a way to decay final states other than a flat shower. EDIT: Pierre told us it will not be possible to have a functional neat merge of MadSpin in aMC@NLO in short time, so that the release should not be delayed any further because of this.
    7983
    8084 9 | V.H. | Fix RAMBO phase-space point generation for 3-body interactions:: simply always generate the single configuration with the third particle at rest. It is good enough for the checks.