Update docs

[felixhekhorn]

Closes #4

@comane and @t7phy can you please help? @andreab1997 maybe as well? just improve with your recent experience ...

e.g. we could consider adding the ssl discussion/snippet from #50 somewhere

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (dcd91cb) 29.18% compared to head (b6640bd) 29.18%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #52 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 29.18% 29.18% ======================================= Files 24 24 Lines 1261 1261 ======================================= Hits 368 368 Misses 893 893 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/NNPDF/pinefarm/pull/52/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=NNPDF) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/NNPDF/pinefarm/pull/52/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=NNPDF) | `29.18% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=NNPDF#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[comane]

Hi @felixhekhorn , I have added a couple of lines regarding openssl as per #50

[alecandido]

Hi @felixhekhorn , I have added a couple of lines regarding openssl as per #50

Thanks @comane!

At the moment, the best thing to do is definitely document, since we're trying to converge on a stable version. However, a proper solution to it will be #7 (most likely, since the only one using OpenSSL should be Git)

[felixhekhorn]

@comane the moment you have updated the mg5 part, I'm ready for review;

(Don't hesitate to reshuffle that part completely - as you can see I already did it so far, you can do it again)

[felixhekhorn]

since the only one using OpenSSL should be Git

Actually it is cargo requiring ssl - so the solution is to use the pre-built binaries

[felixhekhorn]

let's merge something

@comane if you have time please improve whatever you can (also in a later PR)

@cschwan please have a look (even a quick one) and then we simply merge

[t7phy]

Closes #4

@comane and @t7phy can you please help? @andreab1997 maybe as well? just improve with your recent experience ...

e.g. we could consider adding the ssl discussion/snippet from #50 somewhere

@felixhekhorn sorry I must have somehow missed this notification and just saw this. I have actually never used pinefarm

[felixhekhorn]

@felixhekhorn sorry I must have somehow missed this notification and just saw this. I have actually never used pinefarm

@t7phy but you are running Matrix, right? so please consider seriously contributing to https://github.com/NNPDF/pinecards/pull/161 (which should really be a pinefarm PR)

[t7phy]

@t7phy but you are running Matrix, right? so please consider seriously contributing to NNPDF/pinecards#161 (which should really be a pinefarm PR)

that is true, however while using matrix, personally, I have to always do lots of tweaking based on the requirements of specific run, and this is very situation based and not straightforward or trivial and I am unsure of how much of this can be automated. perhaps we can discuss this some day on how to go about this (based on all the bits and pieces that need to be thought about for every run individually)

[comane]

@comane if you have time please improve whatever you can (also in a later PR)

Hi @felixhekhorn, I don't think I can actually contribute much to this PR. I did not end up using pinefarm (madgralh) in the end. The only things I had noticed I already wrote down. Also for Matrix as @t7phy I used the Matrix code rather than pinefarm