[MITgcm-devel] to readme or not to readme

[Chris Hill]

Hi Martin,

  The main content of the README's should be a brief description of what 
the experiment does, useful references and any notes on exceptions to 
the standard way of building/running etc...
  I know that isn't what they contain but thats what they are meant to 
have. It would be great if you could update the ones you are responsible 
for.

THanks,

Chris
Martin Losch wrote:
> Hi,
> I just noticed (or rather was reminded by having a closer look at 
> "them") that many of the README files in the verification experiments 
> have either little to do with the actual content of the directories or 
> the instruction in how to build the model are outdated:
> verification/README (incomplete list)
> verification/aim.5l_LatLon/README
> verification/exp0/README
> verification/exp1/README
> verification/exp3/README
> verification/exp4/README
> verification/exp5/README
> verification/flt_example/README
> verification/front_relax/README
> verification/global_ocean.90x40x15/README
> verification/global_ocean.cubed32x32x30/README
> verification/global_ocean_pressure/README
> verification/hs94.1x64x5/README
> verification/internal_wave/README
> verification/inverted_barometer/README
> verification/natl_box/README
> 
> Some of the README's belong to experiments, that are no longer tested. 
> For some of the README's I am actually responsible myself, but before I 
> update those, is there a general idea of what should be contained in 
> them (i.e.., a good example of what a README should look like)? I guess 
> compile instructions can be found on the manual-web pages and should 
> therefore not be repeated in every directory? I personally feel, that is 
> it more important to describe, what is actually happening in the 
> specific experiment.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>