Index: trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt
===================================================================
--- trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41347)
+++ trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41402)
@@ -1,2 +1,9 @@
+
+We thank the referee for the many detailed suggestions.  We have
+incorportated these in almost all cases into the article.  The
+result is greatly improved in terms of clarity and context.  Below are
+our specific responses the the suggestions of the referee.
+
+(Our responses to the comments start with "**" and are indented).
 
 Referee Report
@@ -67,12 +74,12 @@
 mask values appear in the DR1 and DR2 data releases. For example,
 Tables 1-4 must refer to some named quantities in the data releases.
-This paper should also clearly indicate which quantities are recommended
-to be most reliable for point source astrometry, fluxes and colors.
-(My guess would be the astrometry from the stacked images in Sec 4.7, since
-those aren't recomputed; fluxes from the averaged forced photometry
-in Sec 6; and colors from either aperture photometry on the stacked
-images or from the averaged forced photometry, and the authors must
-know which is demonstrated to be more reliable). The paper should
-state the same for galaxy astrometry, fluxes and colors.
+This paper should also clearly indicate which quantities are
+recommended to be most reliable for point source astrometry, fluxes
+and colors.  (My guess would be the astrometry from the stacked images
+in Sec 4.7, since those aren't recomputed; fluxes from the averaged
+forced photometry in Sec 6; and colors from either aperture photometry
+on the stacked images or from the averaged forced photometry, and the
+authors must know which is demonstrated to be more reliable). The
+paper should state the same for galaxy astrometry, fluxes and colors.
 
 ** for each section, we have added a summary of where the values may
@@ -97,5 +104,6 @@
 that the photometric goals are achieved
 
-** added comparion discussion of chip, warp, stack photometry at the end of Sec 6.1
+** added comparion discussion of chip, warp, stack photometry at the
+   end of Sec 6.1
 
 - Sec 7, where the image differencing detections and photometry is used
@@ -643,8 +651,8 @@
    are completely constrained.
 
-We have renamed Section 6 as Forced Warp Analysis and split out the
-PSF vs extended source analysis sections as recommended.  We added
-some explanation at the end of the section to explain what we mean by
-'forced'.
+** We have renamed Section 6 as Forced Warp Analysis and split out the
+   PSF vs extended source analysis sections as recommended.  We added
+   some explanation at the end of the section to explain what we mean
+   by 'forced'.
 
 - The general description of the section should end with "variant of psphot",
@@ -665,4 +673,5 @@
 - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without
 definition. Are warp images the same as CAMERA and CHIP?
+
 ** Updated Section 2 to outline the relevant processing stages and
 define 'warp', 'skycell', and 'stack' more cleanly.