Closed sdeastham closed 2 years ago
@sdeastham It's annoying, but could you maybe base this against develop
. This isn't really a hotfix, I suppose, so it should technically go to that first. Not that it matters much in the end
@mathomp4 no problem! I've given it a shot using the github rebase option - if it doesn't work I'll just kill this PR and redo it. Shouldn't take more than a minute.
Welp, the boring GEOSgcm model seems to run with this update. I suppose it is safe. I'll consult @tclune on what the correct version for the release should be...
Well, it is a new feature, however minor. So in and of itself it suggest a minor revision.
I think one of the struggles we have here, is that when features are accumulated by the in-house team, we don't feel pressured to make a release until something big comes along or we feel we have lots of little things worth capturing. But when an external feature is submitted we feel pressured to do a new release right away. Not saying that's good or bad. Just an observation.
@tclune Okay. I don't mind. infinite number of integers! :)
@sdeastham I've released v1.7.0 with this fix.
When the user does NOT want to exclude advection tracers, there is currently no way to safely ensure this without causing a warning to be pushed to stdout on every time step. This can now be prevented by setting
EXCLUDE_ADVECTION_TRACERS: NO
in the relevant resource file.