So, it seems pretty clear that the RecoilAnalysis version is the 
well-maintained version.  I can't even recall doing a migration or in which 
direction i migrated it.  I assume from VubAna->RecoilAna for the 
introduction of the recoil analysis base class.
I'll go through the 2 and bring each up to speed with the other.

Ed


On Friday 07 January 2005 10:31 am, Kerstin Tackmann allegedly wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I made some changes to recoilDSys in RecoilAnalysis last February, but I
> did not touch the recoilDSys in VubAnalysis.
> I posted a short description of the changes is posted here:
> http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/semi_lept_decays/4.htm
>l
>
> But since it refers to the AWG meeting before the posting, it might be a
> little unclear. I made three types of changes to the code:
>
> 1) I changed the weights that were used for the B->Xclnu BFs according to
> the values of the AWG-reweighting page. Since the uncertainties there were
> asymmetric I implemented an asymmetric Gaussian in the Brandomize function
> for the variation of the BFs.
>
> 2) I had problems with how the random numbers were thrown, since it used
> the time to set the seed and when jobs would start too shortly after
> another they would give me the same results (which is obviously not what
> we want). So I changed it so you could pass a number that determined how
> the seed got set (in pratice it throws random numbers for 10*the number
> you pass it and uses the random numbers it throws after throwing these
> 10*x away, and accordingly for the D weights). So you would call
> VirVubFitter with -Sys i, i=3...52 or so and were sure to get different
> random numbers thrown per job (and I made checks the distributions of the
> weights looks ok doing it this way and to not have some strange
> behavior).
>
> 3) This is for the unfolding, so we could write out the weights into files
> and read them in later again when running in our binning.
>
> This version was tagged KT022304. I do not know if Concezio's changes were
> made after this.
>
> Kerstin
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Concezio Bozzi wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > in VirVubFitter we have been using RecoilAnalysis/recoilDSys, but we
> > also did (more than 1 year ago) detailed checks with
> > VubAnalysis/recoilDSys, which I believe gave consistent results.
> > At the moment we cannot check the details in our logbooks (both Virginia
> > and I are not in Ferrara), we'll do that on Monday.
> > Ciao, Concezio.
> >
> > Daniele del Re wrote:
> > >>yes,  in  principle  you  are right.   However,  VubAnalysis/fitNtp.cc
> > >>includes the  other version (the one  in VubAnalysis). So  it would be
> > >>nice to  have THE person  to know  sign off with  a better CL  than "I
> > >>presume". Are the differences between the two versions understood?
> > >
> > >VirVubFitter results were consistent with the fitNtp ones (right
> > >Virginia) and fitNtp is not used since ages.
> > >
> > >This is what I know. I am noticing that the VubAnalysis version was the
> > >result of the migration done by Ed. Probably Ed himself knows if there
> > > was an original large difference between the two. After the first
> > > commit there have been just two versions with fixes by Kerstin and
> > > Concezio.
> > >
> > > Daniele