ACCESS-ESM Source Repository

Earth System Earth System Model
1

Hi

When access-svn.nci.org.au was not accessible from gadi, I extracted the sources from https://access-svn.nci.org.au/svn/cmip5/branches/dev/jxs599/trunk_ESM1.5/submodels/UM to accessdev and then always copied them from there to gadi to compile.

But now there should be an NCI local source repository for older UM versions and I want to use the proper source location. Can someone point out where it is?

Thank you
Holger

2

Great timing @holger! Was just discussing this with @heidi.

The ACCESS subversion server was dumped to disk in /g/data/access/access-svn. fcm seems to be able to grok this format, but for CLI access I used svnlook

$ svnlook info /g/data/access/access-svn/access
ars599
2017-12-06 14:10:34 +1100 (Wed, 06 Dec 2017)
27
ACCESS 1.4 submodels CABLE2

Does that help?

3

Not really, sorry

You are right, this is where I was told the um repo had gone to. But I fail to find the specific branch.

$ module load fcm
$ fcm ls fcm:um/branches/dev/jxs599/
ACCESS/
ACCESS1.4-LUC/
ACCESS1.4_luc/
ACCESS1.4_luc_1072/
ACCESS1.4_luc_1072_B/
ACCESS1.4_luc_october17/
ACCESS1.4_luc_perf/
ACCESS1.4_luc_redux/
ACCESS1.4_luc_reduxB/
tools/
vn7.3/
vn8.2/
vn8.5/

As you can see, there is no trunk_ESM1.5, which is what I’m looking for. (I’m a bit rusty on svn directly, when I give it the directory it expects it to be a working directory, not the repository, but I don’t think it’s much different.)

4

@MartinDix, @tiloz, @Scott: Any ideas?

5

It’s there -

svn ls file:///g/data/access/access-svn/cmip5/branches/dev/jxs599/trunk_ESM1.5/submodels/UM
compile/
umbase_hg3/
ummodel_hg3/

fcm:um would be file:///g/data/access/access-svn/um, you want to use the cmip5 repo instead

6

Thank you @scott

Do you know whether there’s an fcm keyword for it, I can’t find one.

Cheers
Holger

7

It appears not -

grep cmip5 /g/data/access/apps/fcm/2019.09.0/etc/fcm/keyword.cfg
8

How hard is it to add it? Can I do it myself? Is it just adding another line to the config file you’ve given above? Or is this a big no-no?

9

Do you mean cmip5 @holger? Not cmip6?

In any case as long as you’re sure it is correct then I think that would be an excellent initiative, but I think it is worth getting feedback from @MartinDix and @tiloz to make sure.

10

Yes, CMIP5. This was one of the models used to generate output for CMIP5 as far as I know.