sparse checkout of GEOS_util

[weiyuan-jiang]

This PR needs GEOS Util PR#58

[gmao-rreichle]

@weiyuan-jiang : Did you test this PR (using the GEOS_Util feature branch)? I suppose that would also count as a test of https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util/pull/58/files. I imagine Scott would also need us to test GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#58 with the GCM, which @biljanaorescanin could do. If GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#58 is ready, now's a good time to elevate it to "ready for review" and get Scott's attention. (We also have GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#53 waiting for Scott.)

[weiyuan-jiang]

@weiyuan-jiang : Did you test this PR (using the GEOS_Util feature branch)? I suppose that would also count as a test of https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util/pull/58/files. I imagine Scott would also need us to test GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#58 with the GCM, which @biljanaorescanin could do. If GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#58 is ready, now's a good time to elevate it to "ready for review" and get Scott's attention. (We also have GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#53 waiting for Scott.)

I have built it but not tested. I assumed GEOS_Util 's PR is good to go

[gmao-rreichle]

I have built it but not tested. I assumed GEOS_Util 's PR is good to go

@weiyuan-jiang: GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#58 (58) was started by you and is in draft form, without documentation or notes about testing. Maybe you confused 58 with GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#53 (53) when you wrote that you "assumed GEOS_Util 's PR is good to go"?

[weiyuan-jiang]

I have built it but not tested. I assumed GEOS_Util 's PR is good to go

@weiyuan-jiang: GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#58 (58) was started by you and is in draft form, without documentation or notes about testing. Maybe you confused 58 with GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util#53 (53) when you wrote that you "assumed GEOS_Util 's PR is good to go"?

Oh, I mean both PRs in GEOS_Util are ready.