What, never worked on a project with moving requirements? It really
sharpens your skill in developing architectures on-the-fly (yeah, right).
In our case, I don't recollect seeing a functional spec in the first
place... Seriously, we did talk about this at Sanibel last February, but I
did not hear a firm request after that, and was not sure what folks were
really expecting, and what else had actually gotten done. For pmemd this is
less of a big deal given that we don't try to run on relatively small memory
machines, but I think the thing that has emerged here is that either end of
the process - model building in the leaps, and looking at results in ptraj,
vmd, etc. etc. just wouldn't be there. So I am fine not doing it on that
account. Hey, I am furiously working to get about 15,000 lines of other
stuff done as it is, and any 1% of that makes this stuff look like a walk in
the park. Thanks again to everyone for the discussion; let's plan on doing
it in 11. And in the meantime, in my opinion at least, we should be doing
things that accentuate our emphasis on producing more meaningful numbers.
Best Regards - Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Brozell" <sbrozell.scripps.edu>
To: <amber-developers.scripps.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: amber-developers: Fw: How many atoms?
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, David A. Case wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007, Robert Duke wrote:
>>
>> > The problem, though, is it makes no sense to do any of this at all
>> > unless it
>> > happens in pmemd / sander / the leaps / ptraj. Dave, if you would
>> > drive us
>> > to consensus I would appreciate it ...
>>
>> My vote is to keep things as they are for Amber 10, and re-visit the
>> million
>> atom limit for Amber 11.
>
> Oooppps, did I miss another election.
> I know Im not in the electorial college, but for the popular vote
> my ballot reads: do not featurize a product near the shipment date.
>
>> Since I (may) have your attention, please try to get yourself a bugzilla
>> account -- I'd like to do a better job of trying to make sure that
>> problem
>> reports don't get lost, and this is what we are trying now. Enchancement
>> requests (such as for lots of atoms) can also go there, and get
>> discussed.
>>
>> Scott: can you re-post the bugzilla instructions? thx. Also, can you
>> see if
>> there is a way to browse bug reports, rather than having to always do a
>> search?
>
> Yes, coming soon: same time, same channel
>
> Scott
>
>
>
Received on Sun Dec 09 2007 - 06:07:18 PST
