[REVIEW]: gtk-fortran: a GTK+ binding to build Graphical User Interfaces in Fortran

[whedon]

Submitting author: @vmagnin (Vincent MAGNIN)
Repository: https://github.com/jerryd/gtk-fortran
Version: v17.10
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @johnsamuelwrites, @sundmanbo
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2544192

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/33eda34ec9fd549844fb43ca28dd879a"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/33eda34ec9fd549844fb43ca28dd879a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/33eda34ec9fd549844fb43ca28dd879a/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/33eda34ec9fd549844fb43ca28dd879a)

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

@johnsamuelwrites & @sundmanbo, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @johnsamuelwrites

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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 (v17.10)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@vmagnin) made major 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?
• 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 @sundmanbo

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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 (v17.10)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@vmagnin) made major 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?
• 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated 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 what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @johnsamuelwrites, 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/joss-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/joss-reviews:

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

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@johnsamuelwrites, @devonrex, @sundmanbo this is where the review takes place. There are tick boxes at the top if this issue to guide you through the process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! 🤖 🚀

[sundmanbo]

Hi Kevin I am not sure this is the right way to conatct you but I am very unhappy about whedon/JOSS sending me a lot of emails about the reviewing of papers I am not involved in. How do I stop that? Bo Sundman Den tors 29 nov. 2018 kl 10:32 skrev Kevin Mattheus Moerman < notifications@github.com>:

…

@johnsamuelwrites <https://github.com/johnsamuelwrites>, @devonrex <https://github.com/devonrex>, @sundmanbo <https://github.com/sundmanbo> this is where the review takes place. There are tick boxes at the top if this issue to guide you through the process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! 🤖 🚀 — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1109 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH3Mdl1q9VdTNqR7iOCe0AUSn3IODcuYks5uz6mVgaJpZM4Y5RCL> .

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@sundmando yes that is annoying. The top of this issue contains instructions to avoid this. I.e. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews. Let me know if you need more help.

[sundmanbo]

Yes I need more help. Where do I find a "No watching" button? Den lör 1 dec. 2018 kl 11:41 skrev Kevin Mattheus Moerman < notifications@github.com>:

…

@sundmando yes that is annoying. The to of this issue contains instructions to avoid this. I.e. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews. Let me know if you need more help. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1109 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH3MdqtZf3zrdYLQp-5u6tGK-sRaHxamks5u0lzpgaJpZM4Y5RCL> .

[arfon]

Yes I need more help. Where do I find a "No watching" button?

@sundmanbo - if you might want to change your settings in your GitHub profile here to stop emails being sent:

[johnsamuelwrites]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @vmagnin v17.10 is the specified version for the journal. gtk-fortran follows a different versioning scheme, making use of the gtk version as well. For example: https://github.com/jerryd/gtk-fortran/releases shows v17.10.gtk3.22.25 and v17.10.gtk2.24.31. Is it possible to specify these two versions?

[vmagnin]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @vmagnin v17.10 is the specified version for the journal. gtk-fortran follows a different versioning scheme, making use of the gtk version as well. For example: https://github.com/jerryd/gtk-fortran/releases shows v17.10.gtk3.22.25 and v17.10.gtk2.24.31. Is it possible to specify these two versions?

Each version of gtk-fortran is numbered using the Ubuntu version used to build it, for example 17.10: but each release comprises a GTK+ 2 version and a GTK+3 version. And 3.22.25 and 2.24.31 are the precise GTK+ versions used to build gtk-fortran.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Happy New Year to all!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@johnsamuelwrites, @devonrex, @sundmanbo can you provide an update on the review process? Let me know if I can help with anything. Thanks.