On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Erik Schnetter schnetter@cct.lsu.eduwrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Barry Wardell barry.wardell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Ian Hinder ian.hinder@aei.mpg.de
wrote:
I believe the requirements for inclusion should be that the code has
tests
and documentation, is considered by an independent reviewer to be of sufficiently high quality, and is expected to be generally useful. I
think
all we are missing is documentation and the independent reviewer (volunteers?).
What type of documentation is required? Currently there is only a basic README file. Should there also be some sort of Cactus documentation which describes the arrangement/thorns? Is there anything more than this
needed?
There needs to be documentation, but it does not have to be at the thorn level -- documenting all thorns combined works fine. I would expect information on how to use the thorns, how to regenerate them, and how to modify or add a new metric. In particular, the thorns' parameters need to be explained. Test cases are also required.
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.