create blank directories for papers missing build information

[shriram]

No description provided.

[camild]

Good idea: a paper may be misclassified (e.g., mistakenly claimed as theoretical) and have an artifact to check.

[samth]

Indeed, this one is an example: http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/data/tissec15_YavuzNR12_data.txt

As I wrote on G+:

It's marked as "theoretical" in the database, with this comment. "VERIFY:COMMENT[string] Since proofs exist for the effectiveness of the system, I'm not sure either if it is necessary to ask for implementaitons."

But there's also: "PI:COMMENT_CC[string] They measure performance. So, we need access to their code. Proof of correctness means nothing, by the way!"

If you look at the paper, it has performance numbers for an implementation. For the overall numbers, though, it still is counted as "theoretical".

I couldn't find the implementation with about 10 minutes of looking.

[hilmar-hoffmann]

I second this, too, but I thought

We have focused on a particular, large, and important class: the ones that they have put into "builds" + "build fails".
(shriram posting to #50)

??
Anyway, havng a reprensentation for each paper was acutally what I had originally in mind with #50, so no complaints here.
I wasn't aware that you already had posted #49 covering this a quarter of an hour earlier :-)