<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Erik Schnetter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:schnetter@cct.lsu.edu" target="_blank">schnetter@cct.lsu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Barry Wardell <<a href="mailto:barry.wardell@gmail.com">barry.wardell@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Ian Hinder <<a href="mailto:ian.hinder@aei.mpg.de">ian.hinder@aei.mpg.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I believe the requirements for inclusion should be that the code has tests<br>
>> and documentation, is considered by an independent reviewer to be of<br>
>> sufficiently high quality, and is expected to be generally useful. I think<br>
>> all we are missing is documentation and the independent reviewer<br>
>> (volunteers?).<br>
><br>
><br>
> What type of documentation is required? Currently there is only a basic<br>
> README file. Should there also be some sort of Cactus documentation which<br>
> describes the arrangement/thorns? Is there anything more than this needed?<br>
<br>
</div></div>There needs to be documentation, but it does not have to be at the<br>
thorn level -- documenting all thorns combined works fine. I would<br>
expect information on how to use the thorns, how to regenerate them,<br>
and how to modify or add a new metric. In particular, the thorns'<br>
parameters need to be explained. Test cases are also required.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, I will write documentation for all thorns combined as most of the information is common between them. There are already Cactus testsuites and correctness tests for all of the thorns.</div>
</div></div>