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.