| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Until now, the Zenodo identifier was manually written in the paper. But now
we have the Zenodo DOI in 'metadata.conf', so its much more robust to get
it from there (in case updated versions of the paper is published).
|
|
Only two conflicts came up in the newly added comments of 'paper.mk' in the
Maneage branch. It happened because in this project we don't use
'pdflatex', but 'latex' alone.
|
|
POSSIBLE EFFECT ON YOUR PROJECT: The changes in this commit may only cause
conflicts to your project if you have changed the software building
Makefiles in your project's branch (e.g., 'basic.mk', 'high-level.mk' and
'python.mk'). If your project has only added analysis, it shouldn't be
affected.
This is a large commit, involving a long series of corrections in a
differnt branch which is now finally being merged into the core Maneage
branch. All changes were related and came up naturally as the low-level
infrastructure was improved. So separating them in the end for the final
merge would have been very time consuming and we are merging them as one
commit.
In general, the software building Makefiles are now much more easier to
read, modify and use, along with several new features that have been
added. See below for the full list.
- Until now, Maneage needed the host to have a 'make' implementation
because Make was necessary to build Lzip. Lzip is then used to
uncompress the source of our own GNU Make. However, in the
minimalist/slim versions of operating systems (for example used to build
Docker images) Make isn't included by default. Since Lzip was the only
program before our own GNU Make was installed, we consulting Antonio
Diaz Diaz (creator of Lzip) and he kindly added the necessary
functionality to a new version of Lzip, which we are using now. Hence we
don't need to assume a Make implementation on the host any more. With
this commit, Lzip and GNU Make are built without Make, allowing
everything else to be safely built with our own custom version of GNU
Make and not using the host's 'make' at all.
- Until recently (Commit 3d8aa5953c4) GNU Make was built in
'basic.mk'. Therefore 'basic.mk' was written in a way that it can be
used with other 'make' implementations also (i.e., important shell
commands starting with '&&' and ending in '\' without any comments
between them!). Furthermore, to help in style uniformity, the rules in
'high-level.mk' and 'python.mk' also followed a similar structure. But
due to the point above, we can now guarantee that GNU Make is used from
the very first Makefile, so this hard-to-read structure has been removed
in the software build recipes and they are much more readable and
edit-friendly now.
- Until now, the default backup servers where at some fixed URLs, on our
own pages or on Gitlab. But recently we uploaded all the necessary
software to Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3883409) which is
more suitable for this task (it promises longevity, has a fixed DOI,
while allowing us to add new content, or new software tarball
versions). With this commit, a small script has been written to extract
the most recent Zenodo upload link from the Zenodo DOI and use it for
downloading the software source codes.
- Until now, we primarily used the webpage of each software for
downloading its tarball. But this caused many problems: 1) Some of them
needed Javascript before the download, 2) Some URLs had a complex
dependency on the version number, 3) some servers would be randomly down
for maintenance and etc. So thanks to the point above, we now use the
Zenodo server as the primary download location. However, if a user wants
to use a custom software that is not (yet!) in Zenodo, the download
script gives priority to a custom URL that the users can give as Make
variables. If that variable is defined, then the script will use that
URL before going onto Zenodo. We now have a special place for such URLs:
'reproduce/software/config/urls.conf'. The old URLs (which are a good
documentation themselves) are preserved here, but are commented by
default.
- The software source code downloading and checksum verification step has
been moved into a Make function called 'import-source' (defined in the
'build-rules.mk' and loaded in all software Makefiles). Having taken all
the low-level steps there, I noticed that there is no more need for
having the tarball as a separate target! So with this commit, a single
rule is the only place that needs to be edited/added (greatly
simplifying the software building Makefiles).
- Following task #15272, A new option has been added to the './project'
script called '--all-highlevel'. When this option is given, the contents
of 'TARGETS.conf' are ignored and all the software in Maneage are built
(selected by parsing the 'versions.conf' file). This new option was
added to confirm the extensive changes made in all the software building
recipes and is great for development/testing purposes.
- Many of the software hadn't been tested for a long time! So after using
the newly added '--all-highlevel', we noticed that some need to be
updated. In general, with this commit, 'libpaper' and 'pcre' were added
as new software, and the versions of the following software was updated:
'boost', 'flex', 'libtirpc', 'openblas' and 'lzip'. A 'run-parts.in'
shell script was added in 'reproduce/software/shell/' which is installed
with 'libpaper'.
- Even though we intentionally add the necessary flags to add RPATH inside
the built executable at compilation time, some software don't do it
(different software on different operating systems!). Until now, for
historical reasons this check was done in different ways for different
software on GNU/Linux sytems. But now it is unified: if 'patchelf' is
present we apply it. Because of this, 'patchelf' has been put as a
top-level prerequisite, right after Tar and is installed before anything
else.
- In 'versions.conf', GNU Libtool is recognized as 'libtool', but in
'basic.mk', it was 'glibtool'! This caused many confusions and is
corrected with this commit (in 'basic.mk', it is also 'libtool').
- A new argument is added to the './project' script to allow easy loading
of the project's shell and environment for fast/temporary testing of
things in the same environment as the project. Before activating the
project's shell, we completely remove all host environment variables to
simulate the project's environment. It can be called with this command:
'./project shell'. A simple prompt has also been added to highlight that
the user is using the Maneage shell!
|
|
Until now, Maneage would accept the given build directory, regardless of
the free memory available there. This could cause confusing situations for
new users who don't know about the minimum storage requirement.
With this commit, after all other checks on the given build directory are
completed, the configure script will check the available space and warns
the user if there is less than almost 5GB free space available in the build
directory (with a 5 second delay).
It won't cause a crash because some projects may require roughly smaller
than this space (the default only needs roughly 2GB). But we also don't
want the host's partition to get too close to being full, causing them
problems elsewhere. We can change the behavior as desired in future
commits.
|
|
I visited the AMIGA group in January this year and we had some very useful
discussion on Maneage.
|
|
After going through Terry's corrections, some things were clarified
more. Technically, I realized that many new-lines were introduced and
corrected them. Also, in Roberto's biography, I noticed that compared to
the others it has too much non-reproducibility details, so I removed the
redundant parts for this paper.
|
|
Terry is an astronomer at IAC's Scientific Editorial Service and kindly
agreed to review this paper for us and actually pushed this commit. I am
just adding a commit message here.
|
|
Until this commit, the file `BDIR/software/preparation-done.mk' were not
removed when cleaning the project with `./project make clean'. This file
is generated in the preparation of the data during the analysis step.
However, the cleaning is expected to remove anything generated in the
analysis process! Step by step, with the commands:
./project make ---> Will make the preparation and analysis
./project make clean ---> Will remove all analysis outputs (but
not `preparation-done.mk')
./project make ---> Won't do the preparation, only analysis!
However, in the last step it should do the preparation again, because
the input data could have change for any reason. With this commit, the
file `BDIR/software/preparation-done.mk' is removed when cleaning the
project, and consequently, in the analysis step the input data is
prepared.
|
|
In Commit 105467fe6402 (Software tarballs are downloaded even if not
built), we introduced tests to download the tarballs of software even if
they don't need to be built on the respective host. However some small
typos in the checks existed that could cause a crash on macOS. In
particular in the building of PatchELF and libbsd we had forgot to add the
necessary 'x' before the 'yes' in the conditional to check if a we are on
macOS or not.
With this commit these two checks have been corrected. Also, in the
building of 'isl' and 'mpc', we now check for 'host_cc' (signifying that
the user wants to use their host C compiler for the high-level step)
instead of 'on_mac_os'. The reason is that even on non-macOS systems, a
user may not want to build the C compiler from scratch and use the
'--host-cc' option. In such cases, they don't need to compile 'isl' and
'mpc'.
|
|
Until now, the data-lineage figure's step-by-step feature (using the macros
defined at the top) didn't correspond to the new format! It was still based
on the purely-hypothetical format, while the boxes and their contents had
changed.
With this commit, they macros and corresponding parts that they create have
been updated to represent the step-by-step data lineage of this paper.
Also, in the "tools-per-year" plot, the green line was brought ontop of the
histogram to be more clear (especially when transparency isn't implemented
properly in the conversion).
|
|
Until now the color for the branching figure'e "project" branch was too
close to the Derved project branch. With this commit, I am using a slightly
darker shade of brown that is sufficiently differnet from the core Maneage
branch and the derived project branch.
|
|
Until now, the English texts that embeds the list of software to
acknowledge in the paper was hard-wired into the low-level coding
('reproduce/software/shell/configure.sh' to be more specific). But this
file is very low-level, thus discouraging users to modify this surrounding
text.
While the list of software packages can be considered to be 'data' and is
fixed, the surrounding text to describe the lists is something the authors
should decide on. Authors of a scientific research paper take
responsibility for the full paper, including for the style of the
acknowledgments, even if these may well evolve into some standard text.
With this commit, authors who do *not* modify
'reproduce/software/config/acknowledge_software.sh' will have a default
text, with only a minor English correction from earlier versions of
Maneage. However, Authors choosing to use their own wording should be able
to modify the text parameters in
`reproduce/software/config/acknowledge_software.sh` in the obvious
way. This is much more modular than asking project authors to go looking
into the long and technical 'configure.sh' script.
Systematic issues: the file
`reproduce/software/config/acknowledge_software.sh` is an executable shell
script, because it has to be called by
`reproduce/software/shell/configure.sh`, which, in principle, does not yet
have access to `GNU make` (if I understand the bootstrap sequence
correctly). It is placed in `config/` rather than `shell/`, because the
user will expect to find configuration files in `config/`, not in `shell/`.
A possible alternative to avoid having a shell script as a configure file
would be to let `reproduce/software/config/acknowledge_software.sh` appear
to be a `make` file, but analyse it in `configure.sh` using `sed` to remove
whitespace around `=`, and adding other hacks to switch from `make` syntax
to `shell` syntax. However, this risks misleading the user, who will not
know whether s/he should follow `make` conventions or `shell` conventions.
|
|
The 'pdflatex' program is used to build the default Maneage-branch paper.
But since the default paper uses PGFPlots to build the figures within LaTeX
as an external PDF, PGFPlots requires 'pdflatex' to be called with the
'-shell-escape' option. Generally, this option can be considered as a
security risk (in particular when 'pdflatex' is being run by an external
LaTeX file: a malicious LaTeX writer may embed commands in the LaTeX source
that will be executed on the host if this option is present).
This is not too serious of an issue in Maneage, because when someone runs
Maneage, they intentionally let it run many on their system. Hence if
someone wants to exploit a host system, they can add the necessary commands
long before 'pdflatex' is run. After all, all commands in Maneage are run
with the calling user's permissions, hence they have access to many parts
of the user's accounts. If someone is worried about security on a
non-trusted Maneage project they should act the same as they do with any
software: define a new user for it, and call it with that user (as a
weak-level security), or run it in a virtual machine or container.
However, since this option has been explicity mentioned as a security risk
before, it helps if we have a comment explaining its usage in 'paper.mk'.
With this commit, the concerned user will read a brief explanation and can
read the brief discussion at [1] and possibly re-open the discussion or
propose ways of mitigating the security risk(s).
[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15694
|
|
Some low-level software aren't necessary on some operating systems, for
example GCC can't be built on macOS, hence we don't build it and the
GCC-only dependencies. Also, on GNU/Linux systems users could configure
with '--host-cc' to avoid all the time it takes to build GCC when doing a
fast test.
Until now, in such cases not only was the software not installed, but the
tarballs of the software were also not downloaded. Hence making the output
of '--dist-software' incomplete (as in bug #58561).
With this commit, we now import all the necessary tarballs, when the
software isn't necessary for the particular system, it won't be built or
cited, but its tarball will be present anyway, thus allowing the output of
'--dist-software' to be complete.
|
|
When publishing a project, it is necessary to also publish the source code
of all necessary software of the project. We had recently added a new
'./project make' target called 'dist-software' for this job, but had
forgotten to add it in the output of './project --help'! There was also a
small bug inside of it that didn't allow the successful copying of the
created tarball to the top project directory.
With this commit, an explanation for this target has been added in the
output of './project --help' and that bug has been fixed.
|
|
Until now, when making the link to Gnuastro's configuration files, the
'configure.sh' script would incorrectly link to the old configuration
directory under the 'reproduce/software' directory. With this commit, it is
moved to the proper directory under 'reproduce/analysis'.
|
|
Some minor conflicts came up in 'download.mk' and 'verify.mk' (as expected
in the "IMPORTANT" commits) and were easily fixed by choosing this branch's
values.
|
|
Until now we were using 'which' for this job, but throughout Maneage, we
have used 'type', so to help in consistancy, we also use 'type' for this
final command for this project also.
|
|
Until now, when adding the necessary library flags to the build of XLSX
I/O, we were effectively over-writing the 'LDFLAGS' variables. So the
compiler was effectively not being told where to look for the necessary
libraries.
With this commit, to fix the problem, we now append the new linking flags
to LDFLAGS in XLSX I/O's build, not over-write it.
|
|
Marios had read the first draft of the paper (Commit f990bba) and provided
valuable feedback (shown below) that ultimately helped in the current
version. But because of all the work that was necessary in those days, I
forgot to actually thank him in the acknowledgment, while I had implemented
most of his thoughts.
Following Marios' thoughts on the Git branching figure, with this commit, I
am also adding a few sentences at the end of the caption with a very rough
summary of Git.
I also changed the branch commit-colors to shades of brown (incrementally
becoming lighter as higher-level branches are shown) to avoid the confusion
with the blue and green signs within the schematic papers shown in the
figure.
Marios' comments (April 28th, 2020, on Commit f990bba)
------------------------------------------------------
I think the structure of the paper is more or less fine. There are two
places that I thought could be improved:
1) Section 3 (Principles) was somewhat confusing to me in the way that it
was structured. I think the main source of confusion is the mixing of what
Maeage is about and what other programs have done. I would suggest to
separate the two. I would have short intro for the section, similar to what
you have now. However, I would suggest to highlight the underlying goals
motivating the principles that follow: reproducibility, open science,
something else? Then I would go into the details of the seven principles.
Some of the principles are less clear to me than others. For example, why
is simplicity a guiding principle? Then some other principles appear to be
related, for example modularity, minimal complexity and scalability to my
eyes are not necessarily separate.
Finally, I would separate the comparison with other software and either
dedicate a section to that somewhere toward the end of the paper (perhaps a
subsection for section 5) or at least condense it and put it as a closing
paragraph for Section 3. As it is now I think it draws focus from Maneage
and also includes some repetitions.
2) Section 4 (Maneage) was at times confusing because it is written, I
think in part as a demonstration of Maneage (i.e., including examples that
showed how Maneage was used to write this or other papers) and a
manual/description of the software. I wonder whether these two aspects can
be more cleanly separated. Perhaps it would be possible to first have a
section 4 where each of the modules/units of Maneage are listed and
explained and then have the following section discuss a working example of
Maneage using this or another paper.
3) I found Figure 7 [the git branching figure] and its explanation not very
intuitive. This probably has to do with my zero knowledge of github and how
versioning there works, but perhaps the description can be a bit more "user
friendly" even for those who are not familiar with the tool.
4) I find Section 6 to be rather inconsequential. It does not add anything
and it more or less is just a summary of what was discussed. I would
personally remove it and include a very short summary of the
ideals/principles/goals of Maneage at the beginning of Section 5, before
the discussion.
|
|
After trying a clean build of Maneage in a Docker image (with a minimal
debian:stable-20200607-slim OS), I noticed that the building of OpenSSL is
failing because it doesn't find the proper Perl functionality. To fix it,
with this commit, Perl is set as a prerequisite of OpenSSL and this fixed
the problem.
|
|
The project configuration requires a build-directory at configuration time,
two other directories can optionally be given to avoid downloading the
project's necessary data and software. It is possible to give these three
directories as command-line options, or by interactively giving them after
running the configure script.
Until now, when these directories weren't given as command-line options,
and the running shell was non-interactive, the configure script would crash
on the line trying to interactively read the user's given directories (the
'read' command).
With this commit, all the 'read' commands for these three directories are
now put within an 'if' statement. Therefore, when 'read' fails (the shell
is non-interactive), instead of a quiet crash, a descriptive message is
printed, telling the user that cause of the problem, and suggesting a fix.
This bug was found by Michael R. Crusoe.
|
|
Until now, the description of the input-data directory at configure time
included a description of the input data (created by reading the values of
'INPUTS.conf'). Maintaining this is easy for a single dataset, but it
becomes hard for a general project which may need many input datasets.
To avoid extra complexity (for maintaining this list), the description now
points a user of the project to the 'INPUTS.conf' file and asks them to
look inside of it for seeing the necessary data. This infact helps with the
users becoming familiar with the internal structure of Maneage and will
allow the authors to focus on not having to worry about updating the
low-level 'configure.sh' script.
|
|
When './project configure' is run, after the basic checks of the compiler,
a small statement is printed telling the user that some configuration
questions will now be asked to start building Maneage on the system. Until
now this description was confusing: it lead the reader to think that the
local configuration (which was recommended to read before continuing) is in
another file.
With this commit, the text has been edited to explictly mention that the
description of the steps following this notice should be read
carefully. Thus avoiding that confusion.
This issue was mentioned by Michael R. Crusoe.
|
|
The default 'paper.tex' starts by defining some macros and comments
describing them. Until now, the text was not too clear and could be
confusing for someone that is not at all familiar with Maneage.
With this commit, the comments have been edited to be more clear for a
first-time reader. For example they all start with FULL CAPS
summaries.
Two other small things were corrected in 'tex/src/preamble-necessary.tex':
- Until now 'project.tex' was included in this preamble. However, because
of its importance in Maneage, and prominent place in the demonstration
plot of the paper introducing Maneage, it is now included directly in
'paper.tex'. This also allows users to safely ignore/delete this
preamble file if their LaTeX style is different.
- I noticed that some macros for some astronomical software names from the
very first commits in Maneage were still present here! They are no
longer used, so they have been removed.
|
|
Until now, we were saying "POSIX is defined by the IEEE", but in issue #12,
Michael Crusoe pointed out that this is not accurate. It is actually
jointly developed and operated by the IEEE, The Open Group and ISO/IEC JTC
1/SC 22, which together form the Austin Group.
So the sentence was modified to say tha the IEEE (potential publisher of
this paper) is part of the Austin Group that develops the POSIX standard.
Thanks a lot for bringing this up Michael.
|
|
Until now, we were using three EPS (created from SVG) that were downloaded
from https://www.flaticon.com. Therefore it was necessary to acknowledge
the creators and put a link to the webpage. This consumed space in the
caption and decreased the originality of the plot.
Another problem was that the "collaboration" icon (with three people in it)
had arrows, and some of those arrows pointed downwards, make ambiguity in
relation to the top-ward arrows under the commits.
With this commit, three alternative icons are added that I made from
scratch, using Inkscape. The collaboration icon now is two figures and two
speech-bubbles, without any arrows.
|
|
Recently, by default, Maneage will not take the title directly in the PDF,
the title should be given in the 'metdata.conf' file and it is passed onto
LaTeX as a variable. So the comment to "add project title" in the listing
could be confusing. To avoid confusing, I edited it to "Set your name as
author". The comments above the '\title' part is very complete and users
will clearly be able to modify the title if they want.
Also, we had an extra ')' in the line just under it which is now corrected.
|
|
As described in Maneage's commit 2bd2e2f18 (which I found while testing
this project), the existing download recipe had problems when using a local
copy of the input dataset. It was first fixed here, then implemented there.
Also, to clarify things for a new user, some long comments were added at
the top of 'INPUTS.conf' to describe each of the variables, that comment
has also been put here (and is also in commit 2bd2e2f18 of Maneage).
|
|
The text of the default paper hadn't been changed for a very long time! In
this time, three papers using Maneage have been published (which can be
very good as an example), Maneage also now has a webpage!
With these commit these examples and the webpage have been added and
generally it was also polished a little to hopefully be more useful.
|
|
Summary of possible semantic conflicts
1. The recipe to download input datasets has been modified. You have to
re-set the old 'origname' variable to 'localname' (to avoid confusion)
and the default dataset URL should now be complete (including the
actual filename). See the newly added descriptions in 'INPUTS.conf' for
more on this.
Until now, when the dataset was already present on the host system, a link
couldn't be made to it, causing the project to crash in the checksum
phase. This has been fixed with properly naming the main variable as
'localname' to avoid the confusion that caused it.
Some other problems have been fixed in this recipe in the meantime:
- When the checksum is different, the expected and calculated checksums
are printed.
- In the default paper, we now print the full URL of the dataset, not just
the server, so the checksum of the 'download.tex' step has been updated.
|
|
Two words were corrected in the text that made the sentences grammatically
wrong (they were actually typos! historically they were correct, but we
later changed the later part of the sentence without fixing the first
part).
|
|
Until now, in the 'print-copyright' function of 'initialize.mk' (that
prints a fixed set of common meta necessary in plain-text files), we were
simply printing this line:
# Pre-print server: arXiv:1234.56789
But given that all the other elements are click-able URLs, it now prints:
# Pre-print server: https://arxiv.org/abs/1234.56789
|
|
There were two small warnings that are removed with this commit:
- In the end, when we print the number of words in the PDF, we hadn't
accounted for the fact that 'paper.pdf' doesn't always exist (for
example when './project make clean' is run). So a check was added to
only print the number of words when a PDF exists.
- I noticed that the '$(texdir)/to-publish' directory was being built both
in 'initialize.mk' and in 'demo-plot.mk'. So the one in 'demo-plot.mk'
has been removed.
|
|
Some minor conflicts came up in 'initialize.mk' and 'verify.mk'. For the
former, I chose the version on Maneage, for the latter, I kept the 'master'
version on the checksums of this project, but kept the Maneage version for
the rest of the improvements there (like printing the verified files as
LaTeX comments in 'verify.tex'.
While testing the conflicts, I noticed a bug (in the LaTeX macro for the
number of years in the Menke+20 paper) in the previous build, thanks to the
verification step :-)! Fortunately it wasn't actually printed in the PDF,
so a normal reader won't recognize.
The bug was caused by the recently added meta-data/commented lines in the
'tools-per-year.txt' file: when calculating the number of years studied in
that paper, we were simply counting all the lines and we had forgot to
correct this after adding comments. As a result, the un-used LaTeX macro
file was saying that they have studied 47 years instead of the real 31
years! This element was actually used in the very first (+40 page!) draft
of the paper that was summarized to fit into the journal limits.
|
|
The git history of the project is now archived on SoftwareHeritage and a
link to it as was added in the "Reproducible supplement" tag just under the
abstract.
Also, some corrections were also made in the text. In particular, the part
explaining the separation of software and data reproducibility was slightly
clarified to be more clear
|
|
Possible semantic conflicts (that may not show up as Git conflicts but may
cause a crash in your project after the merge):
1) The project title (and other basic metadata) should be set in
'reproduce/analysis/conf/metadata.conf'. Please include this file in
your merge (if it is ignored because of '.gitattributes'!).
2) Consider importing the changes in 'initialize.mk' and 'verify.mk' (if
you have added all analysis Makefiles to the '.gitattributes' file
(thus not merging any change in them with your branch). For example
with this command:
git diff master...maneage -- reproduce/analysis/make/initialize.mk
3) The old 'verify-txt-no-comments-leading-space' function has been
replaced by 'verify-txt-no-comments-no-space'. The new function will
also remove all white-space characters between the columns (not just
white space characters at the start of the line). Thus the resulting
check won't involve spacing between columns.
A common set of steps are always necessary to prepare a project for
publication. Until now, we would simply look at previous submissions and
try to follow them, but that was prone to errors and could cause
confusion. The internal infrastructure also didn't have some useful
features to make good publication possible. Now that the submission of a
paper fully devoted to the founding criteria of Maneage is complete
(arXiv:2006.03018), it was time to formalize the necessary steps for easier
submission of a project using Maneage and implement some low-level features
that can make things easier.
With this commit a first draft of the publication checklist has been added
to 'README-hacking.md', it was tested in the submission of arXiv:2006.03018
and zenodo.3872248. To help guide users on implementing the good practices
for output datasets, the outputs of the default project shown in the paper
now use the new features). After reading the checklist, please inspect
these.
Some other relevant changes in this commit:
- The publication involves a copy of the necessary software
tarballs. Hence a new target ('dist-software') was also added to
package all the project's software tarballs in one tarball for easy
distribution.
- A new 'dist-lzip' target has been defined for those who want to
distribute an Lzip-compressed tarball.
- The '\includetikz' LaTeX macro now has a second argument to allow
configuring the '\includegraphics' call when the plot should not be
built, but just imported.
|
|
Upon submission to CiSE we were informed that the abstract has to be less
than 150 words to be processed. So with this commit, I am shrinking the
abstract slightly, trying to remove some points that are less important and
trying to shrink some of the sentences.
Also, to avoid confusion and be more clear, the term "temporal provenance"
has been replaced by "Recorded history".
|
|
Until now, when the figures were built directly from EPS
('\newcommand{\makepdf}{}' was commented), they would take the full
line-width becoming a little too large! I noticed this after letting arXiv
build the PDF.
With this commit, the 'includetikz' tool takes a second argument to be a
parameter given to 'includegraphics' (which is scale in this case).
|
|
Everything else regarding the submission to arXiv and Zenodo has been
complete, so I done a final read, making some minor edits to hopefully make
the text easier to read.
|
|
The previous explanation was not too clear and simply following it was
confusing. The issue was that with the tarball you have three scenarios: 1)
only build the PDF using existing figures. 2) only build the PDF, but build
the figures yourself, 3) build the full Maneaged project.
Hopefully this distinction is now more clear from the README.md file.
|
|
Some extra explanation can help the user understand the difference between
a Git-based project and a distributed tarball.
|
|
When the project is being re-built from the tarball (not the Git
repository), the 'tex/build' and 'tex/tikz' addresses are actual
directories, not symbolic links. In this case, when someone runs './project
configure', it will complain about not being able to delete them (it
assumes they are symbolic links!).
So with this commit, we first check if they are deletable without '-r'. If
so, then they are full directories and we rename them to a backup directory
to allow the rest of the project to continue building a link there.
|
|
This paper doesn't use pdflatex or biblatex, so it was necessary to make
some small corrections in the make-dist rule of initialize.mk. Also, while
testing the upload on arXiv, I noticed that it complains about an empty
'verify.tex' file, so that is also corrected.
|
|
All the steps following the to-be-added (in 'README-hacking.md')
publication checklist prior to the final check from new clone have been
added:
- 'README.md' file has been set.
- "Reproducible supplement" was added just above the keywords, pointing to
Zenodo.
- A link to the to-be-uploaded data underlying the plot was added in the
caption of the tools-per-year plot.
- A new meta-data configuration file was added to store basic project
metadata to be used throughout the project. This will later be taken
into Maneage. For examle the project title is now stored here and
written into the paper's LaTeX source and output datasets automatically.
- Verification was activated and plot's data and LaTeX macro files are now
automatically verified.
- A complete metadata was added for the data underlying the plot.
- A generic function was added in 'initialize.mk' that will automatically
write project info and copyright in all plain-text outputs.
|
|
The recently added description for this step in the last commit needed some
edits to be more clear and encourage re-building the project from scratch
anytime authors merge with Maneage.
|
|
The minor conflict was with 'reproduce/software/make/high-level.mk', and in
particular because we implemented the fix to Maneage's Task #15664 in this
project first. After it was moved to the main Maneage branch some minor
stylistic corrections were done to it, thus causing the conflict. To
resolve the conflict, I simply imported the full Maneage version of the
file with this command:
git checkout maneage -- reproduce/software/make/high-level.mk
The other conflicts were due to the deleted files (that were resolved as
described in 'README-hacking.md') and the LaTeX files that I had told
'.gitattributes' to ignore from the Maneage branch.
|
|
When some files should not be merged, until now we were suggesting to also
add deleted files to the '.gitattributes' file. However, this feature of
Git doesn't work for deleted files and they would still show up in the
'master' branch after a merge.
So with this commit, we have added a simple AWK command to run after a
merge that will automatically detect and delete such files (using the
output of 'git status --porcelain').
Also, two minor typos were corrected in the newly added
'servers-backup.conf' file: the copyright year was wrong and there was no
new-line at the end of the file (a good convention!).
|
|
Following a test merge, I noticed that the '.gitattributes' file is not
doing anything about the deleted files and also that all the files in
'tex/src/*.txt' should be added (they are too project-specific). So now it
only includes the files that aren't deleted.
For the files that are deleted, in the Maneage 'README-hacking.md' file, I
added an AWK command to easily remove them.
|
|
I noticed that we hadn't include the publication of the workflow and the
advantage that Maneage provides in this regard. So it was added at the end
of the proof-of-concept section. However, it was necessary to summarize
some other parts to not increase the wordcount.
|
