[Rivet] [Rivet-svn] r2970 - trunk/bin

[Frank Siegert]

Hi Hendrik,

On 25/02/11 12:24, Hendrik Hoeth wrote:
> Thus spake blackhole at projects.hepforge.org (blackhole at projects.hepforge.org):
>
>> Author: fsiegert
>> Date: Thu Feb 24 20:05:19 2011
>> New Revision: 2970
>>
>> Log:
>> Add nicer sort logic to rivet-mkhtml: Sort analyses by Spires ID and
>> put everything without one at the back
>
> Honest question: Why do you prefer this over the old sorting?

So I had two goals in mind:
Have newer analyses at the top, and move the MC_* analyses (and as a 
side-effect all unpublished analyses) to the bottom.

Now you would prefer to have the analyses sorted by experiment? I would 
argue sorting them by date makes more sense?

But maybe we can come up with some kind of compromise that meets all goals?

Cheers,
Frank


>
> I don't know about you, but my brain doesn't work particularly well with
> spires IDs. I think in terms of experiments and years. The old sorting
> was a bit cumbersome, because it was reverse. But now ... let's have a
> look at one of the examples from my world:
>
> ATLAS_2010_S8591806
> CDF_2009_S8233977
> CDF_2008_S8093652
> STAR_2006_S6870392
> STAR_2006_S6860818
> STAR_2006_S6500200
> CDF_2005_S6217184
> D0_2004_S5992206
> CDF_2002_S4796047
> CDF_2001_S4751469
> CDF_2000_S4155203
> STAR_2009_UE_HELEN
> CDF_2009_NOTE_9936
> CDF_2008_NOTE_9351
> CDF_2008_LEADINGJETS
> ATLAS_2010_CONF_2010_081
> ATLAS_2010_CONF_2010_049
> ATLAS_2010_CONF_2010_031
>
> The first block is Spires IDs in reverse (!) order. The second block is
> lexicographic in reverse (!) order. For me this means combining the
> worst of all options (okay, purely random would top this). Just have a
> look at how scattered for example the CDF analyses are. I would
> definitely prefer the old sorting, or even better the old sorting but
> not reverse.
>
> Cheers,
>
>     Hendrik
>