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

[REVIEW]: Mikrokosmos: an educational lambda calculus interpreter #29

Open
whedon opened this Issue Sep 2, 2018 · 14 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@whedon
Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 2, 2018

Submitting author: @mroman42 (Mario Román)
Repository: https://github.com/mroman42/mikrokosmos
Version: v0.8.0
Editor: @RobertTalbert
Reviewer: @aj2duncan, @MattForshaw
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@aj2duncan, @MattForshaw please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @RobertTalbert know.

Review checklist for @aj2duncan

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.8.0)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mroman42) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies? (Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.)
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software?
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @MattForshaw

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.8.0)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mroman42) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies? (Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.)
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software?
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Sep 2, 2018

Collaborator

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @aj2duncan it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands
Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 2, 2018

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @aj2duncan it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Sep 2, 2018

Collaborator
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 2, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon
Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 2, 2018

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@labarba

labarba Sep 2, 2018

Member

OK, @RobertTalbert — I manually added a second review checklist above. We're good to go.

👋 @aj2duncan, @MattForshaw — Thank you for agreeing to review for JOSE! This is where the action happens. Each of you has a review checklist above. Feel free to ask questions here, and to open new issues on the submission's repository, if you feel the need.

Member

labarba commented Sep 2, 2018

OK, @RobertTalbert — I manually added a second review checklist above. We're good to go.

👋 @aj2duncan, @MattForshaw — Thank you for agreeing to review for JOSE! This is where the action happens. Each of you has a review checklist above. Feel free to ask questions here, and to open new issues on the submission's repository, if you feel the need.

@aj2duncan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aj2duncan

aj2duncan Sep 2, 2018

Collaborator

I've had some difficulty getting the Jupyter Notebook version working on Windows. Please see mroman42/mikrokosmos#45 Anyone else have this problem?

Command line version installs and works just fine.

Collaborator

aj2duncan commented Sep 2, 2018

I've had some difficulty getting the Jupyter Notebook version working on Windows. Please see mroman42/mikrokosmos#45 Anyone else have this problem?

Command line version installs and works just fine.

@MattForshaw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MattForshaw

MattForshaw Sep 4, 2018

Collaborator

Suggesting the authors add a more prominent statement where users should seek support. mroman42/mikrokosmos#47

Collaborator

MattForshaw commented Sep 4, 2018

Suggesting the authors add a more prominent statement where users should seek support. mroman42/mikrokosmos#47

@aj2duncan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aj2duncan

aj2duncan Sep 9, 2018

Collaborator

@RobertTalbert I'm not entirely sure how it works from here but I'm pretty happy that @mroman42 has satisfied the only issue I had. I really like the project and think the documentation is very good. Let me know if you need anything else from me.

Collaborator

aj2duncan commented Sep 9, 2018

@RobertTalbert I'm not entirely sure how it works from here but I'm pretty happy that @mroman42 has satisfied the only issue I had. I really like the project and think the documentation is very good. Let me know if you need anything else from me.

@MattForshaw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MattForshaw

MattForshaw Sep 9, 2018

Collaborator

Likewise, @mroman42 addressed my comment very quickly. I am very happy for this to proceed.

Collaborator

MattForshaw commented Sep 9, 2018

Likewise, @mroman42 addressed my comment very quickly. I am very happy for this to proceed.

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@labarba

labarba Sep 9, 2018

Member

Do I take it that both reviewers are recommending publication, at this point?

Member

labarba commented Sep 9, 2018

Do I take it that both reviewers are recommending publication, at this point?

@MattForshaw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MattForshaw

MattForshaw Sep 9, 2018

Collaborator

Hi @labarba; yes I'm recommending publication. Many thanks, Matt

Collaborator

MattForshaw commented Sep 9, 2018

Hi @labarba; yes I'm recommending publication. Many thanks, Matt

@aj2duncan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aj2duncan

aj2duncan Sep 9, 2018

Collaborator

Hi @labarba - same here. Thanks.

Collaborator

aj2duncan commented Sep 9, 2018

Hi @labarba - same here. Thanks.

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@labarba

labarba Sep 9, 2018

Member

OK.

👋 @RobertTalbert --- You can give the paper an editorial check now, suggest any improvements you'd like to see, and then let me know you're ready to accept.

Member

labarba commented Sep 9, 2018

OK.

👋 @RobertTalbert --- You can give the paper an editorial check now, suggest any improvements you'd like to see, and then let me know you're ready to accept.

@RobertTalbert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RobertTalbert

RobertTalbert Sep 12, 2018

Will do, probably early next week. (Drowning in Assistant Chair duties right now - remind me why I signed up to do that?)

RobertTalbert commented Sep 12, 2018

Will do, probably early next week. (Drowning in Assistant Chair duties right now - remind me why I signed up to do that?)

@RobertTalbert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RobertTalbert

RobertTalbert Sep 18, 2018

@labarba I've had a look at the paper and have no other suggestions, so I think this one is good to go.

RobertTalbert commented Sep 18, 2018

@labarba I've had a look at the paper and have no other suggestions, so I think this one is good to go.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment