Conversation
|
The model version in the |
|
🚀 Attempted to deploy 🖥️
|
|
@anton-seaice, you can see related changes as we discussed this morning, here https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-om3-configs/pull/1029/changes#diff-500018106e11ef4f5550f8f886da5c57f97d0f01831a04414ba55e63c00996a1 |
|
🚀 Attempted to deploy 🖥️
|
|
The model version in the |
|
🚀 Attempted to deploy 🖥️
|
|
Thanks @chrisb13 - PRs to main trigger a new deployment, so best to bundle this into the next deplyoment (aka the new OM3 build) |
Co-authored-by: Anton Steketee <[email protected]>
Okay. So do you mean that I should cherry pick these commits? Or maybe I could just re-name this branch to the new build? Related: do I base the new build on the main branch of this repo'? |
|
The model version in the |
|
🚀 Attempted to deploy 🖥️
|
This is good as the change is minor. (If it was better to review several pieces of the next deployment seperately, there could be a
Yep |
Ok. I think the name should be I think when I re-name, this will close this PR but I'll then just open a new one. |
|
Yeah - that looks like the PR from last time.
This is the right version to use for now in the spack.yaml. The github workflow will pick up that version and use it for a tag when doing the deployment. There are sometimes conflicts between branch and tag names, so id use a "release candidate" name or something else for the branch (e.g. |
Done. New PR. |
Closes #174
When doing the Upstream model component update it's become clear it would be good to also tweak the docs and related files.
Related:
ACCESS-NRI/access-om3-configs#1029
ACCESS-NRI/access-om3-configs#1028
🚀 The latest prerelease
access-om3/pr175-2at 6c9717f is here: #175 (comment) 🚀