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]: piggyback: Managing Larger Data on a GitHub Repository #971
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.)
Reviewer instructions & questions
@arfon, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
Review checklist for @arfon
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
referenced this issue
Sep 22, 2018
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:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
I’d be happy to! There’s a deal more in README and the two vignettes. In the R world, we really think of vignettes as taking this role; i kinda wonder if it would make more sense to replace paper.md with the intro vignette? Or would that be too long for a paper.md? Or should these just be linked instead?
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:15 AM Arfon Smith ***@***.***> wrote: Hey @cboettig <https://github.com/cboettig> - thanks for submitting this package. Do you think you could add a little more context to your paper including any examples of projects using this package? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#971 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANlen7YlrvFBuH8FpkJvSRtLO0AZ396ks5ud5eAgaJpZM4W1Sm8> .
I think the vignettes are a little too much like technical documentation for the paper. The submission guidelines list these as what your paper should contain:
... so a little bit more about high-level functionality, some use cases, and projects/research making use of this software already. Does that sound OK?
Right, it wasn’t clear to me if bullets 2 & 3 should involve actual code calls. This briefer documentation is what we put in READMEs, (along with quick install instructions). Anyway, I’ll take a stab at this tonight . I still find this conceptually a bit ambiguous; to me; anything that can be justified as being in paper.md is probably meaningful enough to also already exist in part of the standard package documentation. This advice id what we expect in readme and vignettes in rOpenSci, because it is important like you say. I am a bit unclear the extent to which paper.md should duplicate such information.
@arfon Hey Arfon, I just took a stab at updating the
If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
This is how it will look in your documentation:
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 doing either one (or both) of the the following: