RE: Design question #1 interim results -- get ready for more questions!

I agree with 1.
Thanks


-----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: