Open Kristin-2002 opened 5 months ago
@Kristin-2002 I don't think we did use a DY120 version, as far as I can see dy174 derived from JC238-proc-RTmoor-noc which branched off from JC238 ... ?
Agreed we need to check the toolbox and documentation! As far as the variable overwriting I would suggest making more (most) things into functions to help avoid this.
Sounds good to me. Very glad that there is interest in studying in detail and updating the toolbox. This is long overdue.
Hi all, that is great. Thanks for your quick and positive responses.
I agree with the use of functions to avoid overwriting variables.
@yfiring My fault with DY174 – I did not noticed that I saw the oldest commits, not the newest commits in the commit history. The comments how I can see them have the JC238 commits included.
I will raise a new issue to establish a common branch strategy.
Hi all,
I know a lot of you put a lot of work in the toolbox and tried your best to make it working.
However, the last couple of weeks I had a brief look at the toolbox and found several issues without going in depth into the code:
All in all I think the entire toolbox needs to be carefully checked, inconsistencies removed, certain functionalities restored
That will take some time and patience. I am wondering whether it would be easier to start with an older version?
@yfiring I saw that you used the version from DY120 for the current RAPID cruise. What is the reason for that?
Thank you Kristin