#1 is my choice - I think it is easiest for test labs to handle.
Lynda
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 11:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Design question #1 interim results -- get ready for more
> questions!
>
>
>
> On July 19th, I sent this question to the list:
>
> >How should we organize the reference output files?
> >The ideas that have been circulated so far can be segregated into
> >three classes:
> >1. Put the outputs in a separate tree from the tests, with parallel
> > subdirectory structures in each.
> >2. Leave the outputs wherever the submitter put them and find them
> > by some sort of naming scheme.
> >3. Put the outputs in subdirectories dispersed throughout the tree
> > of test cases, and use a designated name for the subdirectory.
>
> So far, we have the following replies:
> Carmelo: #2
> Cris: seemed to be leaning toward #1 in our 1-1 phone call
> And I'm in favor of #1 because I think it allows cleaner file
> management and easier bulk comparison of results.
>
> As best I can tell, nobody else has responded. We need to move on to
> some subsidiary questions so that WE CAN SOLIDIFY THIS DESIGN BY OUR
> AUGUST 21 MEETING, so please re-read my whole message "Action Item for TC:
> answer this design question" dated July 19, and cast your pseudo-vote.
> .................David Marston
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to:
>
