-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 184
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
Updating docs to include JOSE #491
Comments
I think I would favour duplicate docs for JOSE (at https://jose.readthedocs.io) |
I agree with @arfon |
Looks like that domain is already taken.
|
I think both JOSS and JOSE should configure custom domains; docs.joss.theoj.org or joss.docs.theoj.org would be fine. |
Yep, we could do that. |
Both the separate docs and using those domains sounds good. What would be the steps for setting up the domains? We can move the docs from here over to the jose organization to get the docs started, and touch base with Kevin on how he's serving Readthedocs to set things up in the same way. |
I can do this. You should start setting up the docs now and we can switch the domains out at the end.
I'm actually set up all this stuff so you're already talking to the right person here :-) Basically I would start by copying what you find in this folder into the JOSE application. |
Great, thanks. I'll submit an issue on JOSE to let them know I'm working on this, and put in a PR when I've done a first pass at updating to JOSE. |
The Readthedocs is a great resource. It would be nice to add JOSE docs too. I can see a few ways to do this
Update this documentation mainly around Reviewers, changing 'Review guidelines' to 'JOSS Reviewer guidelines' and then adding a 'JOSE Reviewer guidelines'. Likely also adding another template Editorial invite letter too.
A different re-organization, basically with a JOSS section and a JOSE section. This could scale more easily to include other Open Journals. But then there might be a repeat in materials.
Totally different docs for JOSS and JOSE. This would be clean, but then again would likely have some repeated materials.
Thoughts or other ideas? @labarba @arfon @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: