[RFC] Removal of 'evtgenlhc' external (EvtGenLHC91, EvtGenLHCInterface)

[davidlt]

The 'evtgenlhc' external is considered old according to Roberto
Covarelli and we should remove it.

Signed-off-by: David Abdurachmanov [email protected]

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @davidlt for CMSSW_7_6_X.

[RFC] Removal of 'evtgenlhc' external (EvtGenLHC91, EvtGenLHCInterface)

It involves the following packages:

GeneratorInterface/EvtGenInterface
GeneratorInterface/ExternalDecays

@vciulli, @covarell, @thuer, @cmsbuild, @bendavid, @govoni can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@inugent, @mkirsano this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[davidlt]

Note, it's plugin removal. The only way to test this is to add this to IB.

[smuzaffar]

@cmsbuild, please test

@davidlt, we should be able to test plugin removal in dev area ..... that is why we have poisoned plugin concept.

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[davidlt]

@smuzaffar wasn't it always getting plugin from AFS even if you delete it?

[smuzaffar]

No, for each checked out package (in dev area) scram creates poisoned plugin cache. so if a plugin is removed then plugin manager should complain if someone tries to load it

[covarell]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlt]

Apparently 521.0 workflow is now working (something changed in a month), but still tested on machine with access to CVMFS, all fine: 1 1 1 tests passed, 0 0 0 failed. Removal of evtgenlhc does not create problems to 521.0 workflow.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 2e77e13
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11595/8547/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 2e77e13
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11595/8546/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11595/8547/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11595/8546/summary.html

[davidlange6]

+1

[ghost]

@davidlt done in cms-sw/cmsdist#1871