JSS paper vs. JOSS paper

[maelle]

This issue is part of this JOSS review

The JSS paper is mentioned as a resource, which is understandable. I have a few comments/questions on this:

• Is there any way to update the JSS paper to mention the new package? Or at least to add a warning in https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v064i11 ?

• Could you precise more in the README what is still usable in the JSS paper (e.g. the section about " We use an ExperimentRegistry where the job definition is split into creating problems and algorithms. " according to one batchtools vignette) / what parts of the interfaces changed (besides having one single package now). I guess one can get this information by reading NEWS.md + the JSS paper, but NEWS.md contains other information too. This would also make the novelty of the software described in the JOSS paper clearer.

• The second paragraph of the abstract of the JSS paper is really nice (the list with letters), I wonder if it is allowed to have it in your README / in an intro vignette too.

[berndbischl]

Is there any way to update the JSS paper to mention the new package? Or at least to add a warning in https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v064i11 ?

i really dont think that we can update the paper at JSS. but we can possibly put a warning message in batchjobs and batchexps so users are made aware of batchtools, that should really be sufficient?

[maelle]

Yes I guess it'd be sufficient, after all the JSS readers will probably try to load the 2 packages at some point or google around a bit about updates to the packages.

[berndbischl]

Yes I guess it'd be sufficient, after all the JSS readers will probably try to load the 2 packages at some point or google around a bit about updates to the packages.

yep any interested user should at least load it :) will do that.

[mllg]

I've ported the 2nd paragraph to the README.

[mllg]

The comparison/migration stuff is now in a own vignette rather than in the news. This hopefully makes it easier to find and compare.

[maelle]

This looks nice @mllg !

[mllg]

I guess this is now done. Please re-open if I missed something.