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]: CoreRobotics: An object-oriented C++ library with cross-language wrappers for cross-platform robot control #489

Closed
whedon opened this Issue Dec 7, 2017 · 58 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@whedon
Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

Submitting author: @CoreRobotics (Parker Owan)
Repository: https://github.com/CoreRobotics/CoreRobotics
Version: v0.9.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @bmagyar @amjaeger17
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1166214

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/627d0100471555a02730d75e626a85ab"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/627d0100471555a02730d75e626a85ab/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/627d0100471555a02730d75e626a85ab/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/627d0100471555a02730d75e626a85ab)

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 1 instructions & questions

@bmagyar, 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 @danielskatz know.

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 (v0.9.1)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@CoreRobotics) 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)?

Reviewer 2 instructions & questions

@amjaeger17, 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 @danielskatz know.

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 (v0.9.1)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@CoreRobotics) 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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Dec 7, 2017

Collaborator

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @bmagyar 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:

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 Dec 7, 2017

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @bmagyar 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:

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 Dec 7, 2017

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

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Dec 7, 2017

Collaborator
PDF failed to compile for issue #489 with the following error: 

 pandoc-citeproc: "stdin" (line 25, column 2):
unexpected "b"
expecting "c", "C", "p", "P", "s" or "S"
CallStack (from HasCallStack):
  error, called at src/Text/CSL/Input/Bibtex.hs:113:32 in pandoc-citeproc-0.10.4-BdOyQb33rzG2TMOLj4Fbp9:Text.CSL.Input.Bibtex
pandoc: Error running filter pandoc-citeproc
Filter returned error status 1
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

PDF failed to compile for issue #489 with the following error: 

 pandoc-citeproc: "stdin" (line 25, column 2):
unexpected "b"
expecting "c", "C", "p", "P", "s" or "S"
CallStack (from HasCallStack):
  error, called at src/Text/CSL/Input/Bibtex.hs:113:32 in pandoc-citeproc-0.10.4-BdOyQb33rzG2TMOLj4Fbp9:Text.CSL.Input.Bibtex
pandoc: Error running filter pandoc-citeproc
Filter returned error status 1
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Dec 7, 2017

Collaborator

@bmagyar & @amjaeger17 - this is ready to go

@amjaeger17 - you will have to accept the invitation to join the JOSS reviewers community: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations before you will be able to check off items. Once you do so, I will also assign you to the GitHub issue.

Please use the two checklists above (one for each of you) to carry out your reviews.

An informal guideline is that we would like your review in 2 weeks, but sooner (or later) are also ok.

The reviewer guidelines are available here: http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in this review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in this review thread. (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.)

Any questions/concerns, please let me know.

Thanks!!

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Dec 7, 2017

@bmagyar & @amjaeger17 - this is ready to go

@amjaeger17 - you will have to accept the invitation to join the JOSS reviewers community: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations before you will be able to check off items. Once you do so, I will also assign you to the GitHub issue.

Please use the two checklists above (one for each of you) to carry out your reviews.

An informal guideline is that we would like your review in 2 weeks, but sooner (or later) are also ok.

The reviewer guidelines are available here: http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in this review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in this review thread. (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.)

Any questions/concerns, please let me know.

Thanks!!

@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics commented Dec 7, 2017

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Dec 7, 2017

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

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 7, 2017

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Dec 7, 2017

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

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics Dec 7, 2017

Not sure what's going on with the pdf generator. We have a pdf compiled from latex in the repository root, same content as the paper.md

CoreRobotics commented Dec 7, 2017

Not sure what's going on with the pdf generator. We have a pdf compiled from latex in the repository root, same content as the paper.md

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Dec 7, 2017

Member

@whedon generate pdf

Member

arfon commented Dec 7, 2017

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Dec 7, 2017

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

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@openjournals openjournals deleted a comment from whedon Dec 7, 2017

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Dec 7, 2017

Collaborator
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf

@openjournals openjournals deleted a comment from whedon Dec 7, 2017

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Dec 7, 2017

Member

Not sure what's going on with the pdf generator. We have a pdf compiled from latex in the repository root, same content as the paper.md

I found a weird edge-case in the code that I just fixed. Looks like the paper is compiling OK now.

Member

arfon commented Dec 7, 2017

Not sure what's going on with the pdf generator. We have a pdf compiled from latex in the repository root, same content as the paper.md

I found a weird edge-case in the code that I just fixed. Looks like the paper is compiling OK now.

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Dec 7, 2017

Collaborator
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 7, 2017

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
@amjaeger17

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amjaeger17

amjaeger17 Dec 12, 2017

Collaborator

@danielskatz for documentation is there an expectation that there is a static/pregenerated api documentation? Or is a Doxygen config file acceptable? - Unclear from JOSS guidlines although most repos seem to have a link to docs.

Collaborator

amjaeger17 commented Dec 12, 2017

@danielskatz for documentation is there an expectation that there is a static/pregenerated api documentation? Or is a Doxygen config file acceptable? - Unclear from JOSS guidlines although most repos seem to have a link to docs.

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Dec 12, 2017

Collaborator

Just to take one checkbox as an example:

Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).

I would expect that if you check this box, there is either hand-written or auto-generated text in the repo or after the software is built that includes such examples.

Does that answer your question?

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Dec 12, 2017

Just to take one checkbox as an example:

Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).

I would expect that if you check this box, there is either hand-written or auto-generated text in the repo or after the software is built that includes such examples.

Does that answer your question?

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Dec 18, 2017

Collaborator

@amjaeger17 - How is your review coming along? Any sticking points where I can help?

@bmagyar - It doesn't look like you've started your review. When do you expect to?

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Dec 18, 2017

@amjaeger17 - How is your review coming along? Any sticking points where I can help?

@bmagyar - It doesn't look like you've started your review. When do you expect to?

@bmagyar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bmagyar

bmagyar Dec 18, 2017

Collaborator

I remember ticking some boxes, perhaps they didn't get saved or I was a bit of a noob and ticked the boxes belonging to @amjaeger17 . I've actually opened a bunch of issues already

Collaborator

bmagyar commented Dec 18, 2017

I remember ticking some boxes, perhaps they didn't get saved or I was a bit of a noob and ticked the boxes belonging to @amjaeger17 . I've actually opened a bunch of issues already

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Dec 18, 2017

Collaborator

Thanks - as you open issues, please put a note in this issue saying that you have done so, and ideally linking to those issues as appropriate, so a future reader (or the current editor) can look at this issue and understand the process of the overall review.

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Dec 18, 2017

Thanks - as you open issues, please put a note in this issue saying that you have done so, and ideally linking to those issues as appropriate, so a future reader (or the current editor) can look at this issue and understand the process of the overall review.

@bmagyar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Collaborator

bmagyar commented Dec 18, 2017

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Jan 1, 2018

Collaborator

@amjaeger17 - If the checkboxes in your list weren't checked by you, they were accidentally checked by @bmagyar; feel free to uncheck them.

@CoreRobotics - Any news on the issues opened by @bmagyar ?

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Jan 1, 2018

@amjaeger17 - If the checkboxes in your list weren't checked by you, they were accidentally checked by @bmagyar; feel free to uncheck them.

@CoreRobotics - Any news on the issues opened by @bmagyar ?

@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics Jan 4, 2018

@danielskatz We are currently working to address some of the issues @bmagyar opened. I do have a question... a couple of the issues seem to be preferential, e.g.: #7. It is difficult at this stage for us to rename all the classes since this would require significant rework of existing projects using the library. Is this a necessary fix? Thanks for the clarity.

CoreRobotics commented Jan 4, 2018

@danielskatz We are currently working to address some of the issues @bmagyar opened. I do have a question... a couple of the issues seem to be preferential, e.g.: #7. It is difficult at this stage for us to rename all the classes since this would require significant rework of existing projects using the library. Is this a necessary fix? Thanks for the clarity.

@bmagyar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bmagyar

bmagyar Jan 25, 2018

Collaborator

One last issue from me about the DOI entries, everything else has green lights.

Collaborator

bmagyar commented Jan 25, 2018

One last issue from me about the DOI entries, everything else has green lights.

@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics commented Jan 25, 2018

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 25, 2018

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

whedon commented Jan 25, 2018

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 25, 2018

Collaborator
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
Collaborator

whedon commented Jan 25, 2018

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics commented Jan 25, 2018

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 25, 2018

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

whedon commented Jan 25, 2018

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 25, 2018

Collaborator
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
Collaborator

whedon commented Jan 25, 2018

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Jan 26, 2018

Collaborator

Thanks @bmagyar - it looks like your side of this is almost done, and the path is clear.

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Jan 26, 2018

Thanks @bmagyar - it looks like your side of this is almost done, and the path is clear.

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Jan 26, 2018

Collaborator

@amjaeger17 - again, any news on your side?

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Jan 26, 2018

@amjaeger17 - again, any news on your side?

@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics commented Jan 26, 2018

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 26, 2018

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

whedon commented Jan 26, 2018

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 26, 2018

Collaborator
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
Collaborator

whedon commented Jan 26, 2018

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics commented Jan 26, 2018

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 26, 2018

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

whedon commented Jan 26, 2018

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Jan 26, 2018

Collaborator
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
Collaborator

whedon commented Jan 26, 2018

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00489/joss.00489/10.21105.joss.00489.pdf
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Feb 3, 2018

Collaborator

Since @amjaeger17 seems to be missing in action, we may proceed without him. @amjaeger17 , last chance to speak up...

But I have a few small issues to bring up before we accept this, basically aimed at the fact that repo seems well-written for developers, but not fully for users. I think the README needs:

  • some of the paper content, such as a brief statement of what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is would fit well in the description section
  • in the building and compiling section, something that allows the user to know if the build is successful, such as an example that can be run, and what the results should be
  • a section called support, that tells users how to report issues or problems with the software, or how else to seek support
Collaborator

danielskatz commented Feb 3, 2018

Since @amjaeger17 seems to be missing in action, we may proceed without him. @amjaeger17 , last chance to speak up...

But I have a few small issues to bring up before we accept this, basically aimed at the fact that repo seems well-written for developers, but not fully for users. I think the README needs:

  • some of the paper content, such as a brief statement of what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is would fit well in the description section
  • in the building and compiling section, something that allows the user to know if the build is successful, such as an example that can be run, and what the results should be
  • a section called support, that tells users how to report issues or problems with the software, or how else to seek support
@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics Feb 5, 2018

Hi @danielskatz I've updated the README.md with commit CoreRobotics/CoreRobotics@dcdae67

CoreRobotics commented Feb 5, 2018

Hi @danielskatz I've updated the README.md with commit CoreRobotics/CoreRobotics@dcdae67

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielskatz

danielskatz Feb 5, 2018

Collaborator

Thanks @CoreRobotics - this looks good.

And @bmagyar - thanks for your reviewing work.

@arfon, please move ahead with accepting this

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Feb 5, 2018

Thanks @CoreRobotics - this looks good.

And @bmagyar - thanks for your reviewing work.

@arfon, please move ahead with accepting this

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Feb 5, 2018

Member

@CoreRobotics - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

Member

arfon commented Feb 5, 2018

@CoreRobotics - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

@arfon arfon added the accepted label Feb 5, 2018

@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics Feb 5, 2018

@arfon OK thanks. Is it ok for us to roll to v1.0 prior the Zenodo release DOI? The version reviewed was 0.9.1 but the changes we've made from this review have prepared for release.

CoreRobotics commented Feb 5, 2018

@arfon OK thanks. Is it ok for us to roll to v1.0 prior the Zenodo release DOI? The version reviewed was 0.9.1 but the changes we've made from this review have prepared for release.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Feb 5, 2018

Member

@arfon OK thanks. Is it ok for us to roll to v1.0 prior the Zenodo release DOI? The version reviewed was 0.9.1 but the changes we've made from this review have prepared for release.

Yeah, I think that's fine.

Member

arfon commented Feb 5, 2018

@arfon OK thanks. Is it ok for us to roll to v1.0 prior the Zenodo release DOI? The version reviewed was 0.9.1 but the changes we've made from this review have prepared for release.

Yeah, I think that's fine.

@CoreRobotics

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@CoreRobotics

CoreRobotics commented Feb 6, 2018

@arfon we have updated v1.0.0 release at Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/1166214#.Wnj8IZM-dE4

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Feb 6, 2018

Member

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1166214 as archive

Member

arfon commented Feb 6, 2018

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1166214 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Feb 6, 2018

Collaborator

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1166214 is the archive.

Collaborator

whedon commented Feb 6, 2018

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1166214 is the archive.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Feb 6, 2018

Member

@bmagyar @amjaeger17 many thanks for your review here and to @danielskatz for editing this submission

@CoreRobotics - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00489 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

Member

arfon commented Feb 6, 2018

@bmagyar @amjaeger17 many thanks for your review here and to @danielskatz for editing this submission

@CoreRobotics - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00489 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

@arfon arfon closed this Feb 6, 2018

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Feb 6, 2018

Collaborator

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippet:

[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00489/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00489)

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider either:

  1. Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
  2. Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=
Collaborator

whedon commented Feb 6, 2018

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippet:

[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00489/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00489)

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider either:

  1. Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
  2. Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment