[ccp4bb]: Bug Fix release of Mosflm

[Harry Powell <harry@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>]

***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***

Dear all

Please note that we have a new (bug fix) release of Mosflm (version
6.11b) now available on our anonymous ftp site at LMB - see

    http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/harry/mosflm/ 

for details on how to obtain the source code. New binaries for all the
popular platforms will be available from early next week.

**********************************************************************
It should be stressed that the results of integration from versions
6.11 and 6.11a are reliable in most cases, so datasets should not need
to be reprocessed.
**********************************************************************

The causes of the bugs can be conveniently summarised as being of two
types;
 
(1) A few typographical errors crept in during the editing of source
code over the last year or so which has meant that, under some
circumstances, the postrefinement has not been working optimally.

(2) A subroutine introduced with v 6.10 sometimes gives unexpected
results when compiled with any optimization other than -O0; this
_only_ appears to affect datasets processed with the 'POSTREF MULTI'
option, which is not recommended in any case for most datasets.

********************************************************************
For _most_ datasets the problems will not have affected data quality
in any noticeable way; re-processing should not be necessary under
most circumstances.
********************************************************************

The effects are manifested in a number of ways;

(i) Crystal to detector distance refinement graph in the SUMMARY file
has a "saw-tooth" appearance, and the YSCALE refinement drifts.

(ii) This only occurs when the POSTREF WIDTH n or POSTREF ADD n
instructions are used (usually recommended only for datasets with low
mosaicities).  Crystal missetting angles do not refine reliably - the
reported shifts are larger than expected.

(iii) On datasets tested here, SCALA rejected more individual
reflections for bad agreement between symmetry related observations
(typically 50% to 200% more), but the total number of merged
reflections was essentially the same. SCALA also gave slightly higher
Rmerg and/or Rsym in some cases (ranging from 0.00% to 0.02% higher in
datasets with Rmerg, Rsym of 3.3 - 4.8%).

I'd like to thank the people who brought these bugs to my attention.

Have a nice weekend!

Harry 
-- 
Dr Harry Powell, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, MRC Centre, Hills
Road, Cambridge, CB2 2QH