HLT v2.1 update (81X).

[Martin-Grunewald]

HLT v2.1 update (81X).
Based on CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-06-01-1100.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @Martin-Grunewald (Martin Grunewald) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

HLTrigger/Configuration
RecoTracker/TkTrackingRegions
Utilities/ReleaseScripts

@perrotta, @smuzaffar, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @fwyzard, @Martin-Grunewald, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @geoff-smith, @makortel, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @mschrode, @wddgit, @jalimena, @gpetruc, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

[slava77]

@VinInn
please confirm this is OK,
so that it's not masking another problem

[Martin-Grunewald]

@VinInn @slava77
See also the comments made very recently at #13819
which added these "assert"s.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 96eb48a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-14811/13413/summary.html

[Martin-Grunewald]

+1

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-14811/13413/summary.html

[Martin-Grunewald]

@Dr15Jones
Also here, could you please sign - the change in Utilities/ReleaseScripts updates the addOn tests.

[Dr15Jones]

+1

[Martin-Grunewald]

@slava77 @VinInn
Can you please go ahead (or break 80X as well if this is a real bug...:)

[cvuosalo]

+1

For #14811 96eb48a

Updating HLT to v2.1.

The code changes are satisfactory. Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-06-07-1100 show numerous small differences in HLT DQM quantities, but there appear to be no changes in Reco quantities.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[VinInn]

I believe that this is technically speaking a regression ,at least for what concern this PR ,and removing the assert "cures" the regression.
Of course this is curing the symptom not the cause.
I will try to chase the cause, which in my opinion is not related to this PR, and therefore not blocking it...

[VinInn]

Please see the discussion in #13819.
Removing the assert is the correct action to reproduce the current behavior at 0T.
That it made any sense is another story....

[davidlange6]

+1