Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multiple sources in a single recipe #20

Open
mcbennet opened this issue May 2, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Multiple sources in a single recipe #20

mcbennet opened this issue May 2, 2018 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@mcbennet
Copy link
Contributor

mcbennet commented May 2, 2018

I was hoping to upload another S ccECP (a version 2), however, it does not appear that the git repo is set up for this kind of case (?). I assume that we would want the user to be presented with both the JCP 147, 224106 ccECP and the upcoming arxiv ccECP for sulfur after clicking 'S' in the periodic table.

If the git repo can already handle these kind of cases, can someone share a brief description of how to add another version to a given recipe.

@prckent
Copy link
Contributor

prckent commented May 2, 2018

There is no special versioning support.

One idea would be to treat new versions as entirely new recipes. If you created a new directory "ccECPv2" the website would show both ccECP and ccECPv2 recipes for sulphur.

Another idea would be to simply remove the older sulphur recipe. If the newer version is definitely superior, why not simply replace it and update the reference? It would make for one less choice for users of the potentials.

Both are reasonable options, but I prefer the latter.

@mcbennet
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcbennet commented May 2, 2018

Ok, I also prefer your latter suggestion, thank you. In addition, I am thinking of a similar case now where I will be uploading both Ne-core and He-core versions -- maybe the best strategy here would be to generate ccECP[Ne] and ccECP[He] recipes, respectively.

@prckent
Copy link
Contributor

prckent commented May 2, 2018

For the multiple core-choice case I suggest _Ne_core (or similar) suffixes for now. Then lets ask for input from everyone else. These are easily changed.

@prckent
Copy link
Contributor

prckent commented May 2, 2018

Maybe only label the _He_core ? Use of these is more extreme.

@mcbennet
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcbennet commented May 2, 2018

That is a good point. I think that is a reasonable solution.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants