[Rivet] Partonic top support?

[David Grellscheid]

> As an experimentalist: If you can't measure it with the detector, it shouldn't
> be easily accessible. I vote for: If you don't play by the rules, you don't get
> an official analysis designation.  I think the rules should stand as they are.

This describes my stance, too. I don't know when maximising the number 
of analyses became a goal for Rivet, but I still think that if the 
analysis doesn't fit, it shouldn't go in. To answer Hannes, too, Rivet 
is a tool, but it's not a tool for everything. Top quarks just are not a 
well-defined final state that you can unambiguously unfold to.

To summarise my points: HepMC access as it is is fine, people are free 
to use it, it will not end up with a Rivet ID if you use partonic 
information.

   David