Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add project metadata json #63

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Sep 29, 2017
Merged

Add project metadata json #63

merged 13 commits into from
Sep 29, 2017

Conversation

iimog
Copy link
Member

@iimog iimog commented Sep 26, 2017

Generated with https://gist.github.com/arfon/478b2ed49e11f984d6fb
and manually adjusted.
Fix #5

Copy link
Member

@greatfireball greatfireball left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I checked the names and the ORCIDs those are okay

codemeta.json Outdated
],
"identifier": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.883594",
"codeRepository": "https://github.com/chloroExtractorTeam/chloroExtractor",
"datePublished": "2017-09-26",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to update the dates or will that be done by JOSS?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this will be automatically updated. I guess we have to do this ourselves. Maybe we can re-run the generation script...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thats okay for me, but in that case I would postpone the pull request until we will submit as last or last before last commit. Or you adjust the dates for tomorrow, as we want to submit it tomorrow.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right we should probably wait.
We have another chicken-or-egg problem: We want to have the doi for version 1.0.0 in this file but we do not have this doi until we release version 1.0.0 ;-)
It is probably best to use the general concept doi of zenodo then: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.883594

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Won't be the optimal but a good and solid solution or do we get an DOI for draft releases?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Another possibility is, deactivation of automated zenodo service, reserving a DOI at zenodo, and making the release and preparing a ZIP-File of that release (does the release tars/zips now include recursive checkouts?) and publish that on our own upload with the reserved DOI. In that case we know the DOI before making the release.

@greatfireball
Copy link
Member

What is with other emails? Should be ask the coauthors if they want to include their email addresses?

Copy link
Member

@greatfireball greatfireball left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. Additional author email addresses need a decision
  2. Dates are updated by us or JOSS?

@iimog
Copy link
Member Author

iimog commented Sep 26, 2017

The emails in the codemeta file are optional. Of course, everyone who wants to can add their address there. Won't hurt to let them know.

@greatfireball
Copy link
Member

In that case I will write another email to our group of authors and will ask, if someone want his/her email added to the meta file

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 26, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.425% when pulling eb43734 on codemeta into d9163d5 on develop.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 26, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.425% when pulling 0e65c8d on codemeta into d9163d5 on develop.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 26, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.425% when pulling 0e65c8d on codemeta into d9163d5 on develop.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 27, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.425% when pulling 17aa8b8 on codemeta into d9163d5 on develop.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 28, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 72.392% when pulling a22b8af on codemeta into f34103d on develop.

@greatfireball greatfireball merged commit 625b8ae into develop Sep 29, 2017
@greatfireball greatfireball deleted the codemeta branch September 29, 2017 03:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants