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]: sourmash: a library for MinHash sketching of DNA #27
Status badge code:
Conflict of interest
Paper PDF: 10.21105.joss.00027.pdf
/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?
If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as
Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue!
I am not a copyright lawyer, but I don't think the text given in the release is exactly what the BSD 3-clause would say. For one thing, the Regents of the U of C and the MSU are mentioned the
This was referenced
Jun 16, 2016
This is a nifty piece of software, combining a snappy algorithm with a pleasant Python API, and a model for good packaging and programmer/developer-friendly documentation (including working demo code, executable documentation, and a command-line tool!).
In the process of reviewing, I've opened a number of issues on the sourmash package itself, but I've only linked to this ticket on those issues that I feel should be resolved before a JOSS acceptance.
I recommend acceptance (after minor revisions).
As an afterword (and a comment to the Editors): Minting a new Zenodo snapshot & DOI before reviewing seems like wasted effort, since (I would hope) nearly all reviewers are going to request changes (even if minor) that will require a new Zenodo snapshot.
Note, the latest version is 0.9.4, https://github.com/dib-lab/sourmash/releases/tag/v0.9.4, and zenodo etc should be updated soon
This was referenced
Jul 18, 2016
Pending these two concerns (both resolved by a little bit more attention to onboarding new developers), I'm satisfied that my concerns have been addressed and recommend the package re-mint and be accepted.
I want to address my one continuing gripe: I don't love that the test code is mixed in (closed, wontfix) among the shipped code (in a public-facing library, this could open an entirely new attack surface) but I don't think it's a release-blocking offense, especially in a research package.