Skip to content
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

Paper: [WIP] Project Jupyter - Binder 2.0 #386

Merged
merged 54 commits into from Jul 3, 2018

Conversation

@choldgraf
Copy link
Contributor

choldgraf commented May 18, 2018

Build server here: http://procbuild.scipy.org/

Note: open review goes until July 2nd.

choldgraf and others added 4 commits May 16, 2018
more authors
@choldgraf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

choldgraf commented May 18, 2018

@deniederhut any idea why I don't see a build of this PR?

choldgraf and others added 5 commits May 19, 2018
adding sustainability and api section
Update paper with affiliation
@deniederhut

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

deniederhut commented May 20, 2018

Not sure -- the server is seeing in the test paper when I reopen that PR. I'm going to close and reopen this pull request -- maybe the server was napping when you made the initial PR.

@deniederhut deniederhut reopened this May 20, 2018
@deniederhut deniederhut added the paper label May 20, 2018
@deniederhut

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

deniederhut commented May 20, 2018

Best guess is that the webhook in procbuild is failing to parse the metadata for this correctly, but I don't have access to that instance. @mpacer do you have time to look into this?

@deniederhut

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

deniederhut commented May 20, 2018

One follow-up -- does it build locally?

Add email and affiliation
@choldgraf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

choldgraf commented May 20, 2018

yeah, builds fine for me

@mpacer mpacer changed the title [WIP] Project Jupyter - Binder 2.0 [Paper] [WIP] Project Jupyter - Binder 2.0 May 20, 2018
@mpacer mpacer changed the title [Paper] [WIP] Project Jupyter - Binder 2.0 Paper: [WIP] Project Jupyter - Binder 2.0 May 20, 2018
@deniederhut

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

deniederhut commented May 20, 2018

The most wonderful M has fixed it! The PR name must start with "Paper" for it to be recognized by the server. You should be able to see your paper here - http://procbuild.scipy.org.

@mpacer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

mpacer commented May 20, 2018

Specifically you can find it (for now) here: http://procbuild.scipy.org/download/3

@choldgraf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

choldgraf commented May 21, 2018

yay! thanks for the clarifications :-)

betatim and others added 5 commits May 23, 2018
Small edits and sustainability changes
Clarify early intro, introduce terms, add some header info
@minrk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

minrk commented Jun 21, 2018

@choldgraf I added a few small edits and fixed some typos.

@choldgraf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

choldgraf commented Jun 21, 2018

thanks @minrk !


In the following sections, we describe the three major technical components of
the Binder project—JupyterHub, repo2docker, and BinderHub—and discuss how each
feeds into the principles we’ve outlined above.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@stsievert

stsievert Jun 25, 2018

Contributor

Could you maybe add a sentence saying that these tools were developed with the Jupyter and Binder teams? Kubernetes is featured in the next section and I got confused on who developed repo2docker (and was wondering why an example was shown).

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@choldgraf

choldgraf Jun 25, 2018

Author Contributor

how's choldgraf#20 ?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@stsievert

stsievert Jun 25, 2018

Contributor

That looks good to me, it helps frame the rest of the paper.

choldgraf and others added 2 commits Jun 25, 2018
adding note about who developed these tools
@choldgraf choldgraf referenced this pull request Jun 26, 2018
20 of 21 tasks complete
@choldgraf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

choldgraf commented Jun 27, 2018

hey all - a friendly ping to @agreiner, @jbednar, and @stsievert to see if there's anything else we should take care of! I think that we addressed all of the comments (or asked clarifying questions etc).

Here's a link to the latest PDF:

http://procbuild.scipy.org/download/3

If the content looks good then we can spend some time getting the formatting / viz looking proper (e.g. not having two figures on the same page etc)

@jbednar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jbednar commented Jun 27, 2018

@stsievert

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

stsievert commented Jun 27, 2018

we can spend some time getting the formatting / viz looking proper

Let me know if you'd like help with this – I can add some comments.

@jzf2101

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jzf2101 commented Jun 27, 2018

If you have specific suggestions @stsievert please let us know

@agreiner

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

agreiner commented Jun 27, 2018

A few editorial niggles: On page 2, second paragraph, you say "Binder 2.0 utilizes these new tools, and is more scalable...". That should be "and it is more scalable...", or you could just go with ", is more scalable..." (depending on how much you want to group those phrases). Near the end of the same paragraph, "frontend" should be "front-end". Where I had suggested adding in the URLs for things, I was thinking you would use references as you did for other URLs. That seems cleaner and still provides the URLs in case someone sees this only in print. This applies to the Binder Site Reliability Guide, Binder Billing, and Binder Grafana Board links referenced on page 6 as well as the links at the top of page 2. Finally, the screen shots in Figure 1 are now awfully small. I think they could go side-by-side and be about 50% larger.
The phrase "On top of" strikes me as ambiguous in the opening sentence of "Maintaining and sustaining a public service". I think you mean "In addition to providing a showcase for the technical components...".

@deniederhut deniederhut added ready and removed pending-comment labels Jun 27, 2018
choldgraf added 4 commits Jun 28, 2018
Small edits per reviewer comments
@choldgraf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

choldgraf commented Jun 28, 2018

Thanks for the suggestions @agreiner - I think I got most of em in choldgraf#21 which I just merged in! LMK if you think there's other stuff to improve!

choldgraf added 2 commits Jun 28, 2018
removing misspelling underline from image
@agreiner

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

agreiner commented Jun 28, 2018

Looking good! I think the footnotes work for those URLs. Sorry I didn't notice this before, but I was looking closely at Figure 5 and noticed that there is a label for "network", but I don't see a corresponding area in the figure. If it's so small a number as to not register in the graphic, I would leave it out and treat it as part of "miscellaneous". You could just mention the average cost of networking in the caption if it's important.

@agreiner

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

agreiner commented Jun 28, 2018

I note you haven't addressed my note on security, but if you feel it's out of scope, I'm fine with leaving that out.

@choldgraf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

choldgraf commented Jun 29, 2018

Ah good point, I missed that one re: security @agreiner - on that topic, I'm not sure how to properly address it without using up a lot of space. Perhaps we can link out to some docs on security issues re: kubernetes, since this is a much more general challenge than just Binder

@deniederhut deniederhut merged commit 7d521a9 into scipy-conference:2018 Jul 3, 2018
@agreiner

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

agreiner commented Jul 3, 2018

FWIW at this point, I'm officially fine with this moving forward once the Fig. 5 image label is addressed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
10 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.