From 3e5ecaf96a61dd802dc864779075458c993b2ed0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mart Lubbers <mart@martlubbers.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:21:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] up

---
 shorts1/data_types.tex |  1 +
 shorts1/yesterday.tex  | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/shorts1/data_types.tex b/shorts1/data_types.tex
index 90aa3dc..5cd8b71 100644
--- a/shorts1/data_types.tex
+++ b/shorts1/data_types.tex
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ the parts several times to figure out the meaning.
 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
 %would you recommend acceptance?)
+The paper
 
 %Comments on quality of writing
 
diff --git a/shorts1/yesterday.tex b/shorts1/yesterday.tex
index 114a2c0..6a4e397 100644
--- a/shorts1/yesterday.tex
+++ b/shorts1/yesterday.tex
@@ -3,21 +3,37 @@
 \date{2016{--}03{-}16}
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
-%Clearly separated sections covering
-
-\paragraph{Summary \& Evidence}
+\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
+The paper proposes an automatic method of narrowing down the lines of code
+responsible for a specific change in behaviour. Besides the method it also
+proposes extensions that allow handling of interfering fault-inducing subsets
+and inconsistent configurations. It also shows that with a little extra
+knowledge about the program the searching time can be decreased significantly.
+
 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
+Evidence of the claims are presented through showing the performance on a real
+life case studies of a small size and big size. Besides the real world
+applications the properties of the algorithm are proven in an earlier published
+report about the algorithm.
 
-\paragraph{Strength \& Weaknesses}
+\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+
 %Weaknesses
 
-\paragraph{Evaluation}
+\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
 %would you recommend acceptance?)
+The author is very clear about the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed
+methods. 
+
 %Comments on quality of writing
+The paper is an easy read and is a good mix of formal descriptions and
+natural language. Also the structure of the paper is clear and it navigates the
+reader in a natural order through the materials.
 
-\paragraph{Discussion}
+\subsubsection*{Discussion}
 %Queries for discussion
+
 \end{document}
-- 
2.20.1