Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
[REVIEW]: bíogo: a simple high-performance bioinformatics toolkit for the Go language #167
Status badge code:
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.)
Conflict of interest
referenced this issue
Jan 24, 2017
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As as reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all JOSS reviews
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
This is all quite new. Please make sure you check the top of the issue after running a @whedon command (you might also need to refresh the page to see the issue update).
Thanks @brentp for your review!
@kortschak the paper.md is short and concise, but I would suggest to add some references to similar projects (biopython, biojava, bioruby, biorust) as a clarification of what the software aims to do and give it some historic reference (it also helps people to find you!). You can also add particular strengths of this project (at this point in time) so as to advertise the work to new comers and (I dare say) some performance metrics to underwrite your claims. Also add references to documentation so that people who want to dig deeper have a single click.
Note that these are merely suggestions to strengthen the scientific side of the paper and make it easy on the reader to understand what you are doing. We can accept the paper as is - so if you want to leave it like this that is fine too.
@pjotrp I can refer explicitly to the original bioRxiv paper as that more fully details the reasoning behind the project and refers to other projects. The link to that is http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/05/12/005033 Do you think that would be satisfactory?
@arfon I would like to hold off until the release of the next version of the host compiler as there is an outstanding test suite failure with the current release candidate that should be fixed in that release. When Go1.8 is release I will update the test matrix and tag a minor version change, pinging @brentp and @pjotrp to ensure things have been done correctly. Is that OK with you?