| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
One superfluous word was removed.
|
|
Minor wording changes - reduction by 10 words.
|
|
Minor wording improvements; reduction by 10 words.
|
|
For consistency, the principles should either all be nouns, or
all be adjectives. Most are nouns, so this commit switches the
adjectives to nouns.
|
|
Compression by about 40 words. Updating python2 to python3
is often nothing more than modifying print statements, so
removing this doesn't weaken the text by much.
Re-creation helps avoid thinking of watching movies, going to
the beach, reading a novel, when seeing the word "recreation":
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/recreation#Usage_notes
The matplotlib sentence was not so clear: now it's a bit shorter
and hopefully clearer.
|
|
Word-length reduction (8 words) of the first part of 3 Principles.
Change in meaning: we can argue that *results* are not part of
science, but science needs aims as well as methods; hypotheses
are needed too, but these overlap between the aims and
methods. So I put "primarily".
|
|
In this commit, the URLs for the 19 "earlier solutions" at the
beginning of "3 Principles" are recovered from
tex/src/paper-long.tex and put behind the package names
as clickable words.
To reduce the chance that these are interpreted as references,
"Project1 (yyy1), Project2 (yyy1)" is changed to "yyy1: Project1,
Project2". We cannot add full references because of the 8000-word
space constraint.
With a minor word improvement, this commit overall reduces the word
count very slightly, by 9, according to
pdftotext paper.pdf |wc paper.txt
before and after the commit.
|
|
Scalability is not just on the size of the project, but also its
complexity, so I added an `and/or complex' to the description of the
scalability principle.
|
|
Someone reading the principles section until now would think that IPOL is
an almosts perfect solution, and for its usecase it certainly is. However,
this is only because of the nature of its work: it only focuses on
algorithms, not usage/analysis which cannot be done in raw ISO C.
So with this commit, I added a new principle on Scalability and discussed
this limitation of IPOL there. To avoid simply lengthening the text, to add
this new principle, I had to remove/summarize some parts that seemed
redundant. In the process, I also removed some of the existing tools (at
the start of the principles section) that had several others in the same
time frame, I have already mentioned (through the "and many more") that
this list is not complete.
Also, the list of people to thank in the acknowledgments is now put in a
one-line per name to be more easily maintainable: Boud and Mohammad-reza
were added, and given that I have sent the paper to several other people
for feedback, I expect the list to get longer.
|
|
A few more minor language edits. For parseable vs parseable, see
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parsable which recommends `parsable`
for formal usage.
|
|
These are mostly minor language edits. There is one significant fix: the
word `typically' in `a non-free software project typically' cannot be
distributed by the project. There is a whole range of licences between
strictly free software definition, strictly OSI open-source definition, and
fully closed source. For example, software with a no-commercial usage
licence (similar to CC-BY-NC) can be publicly redistributed on any server,
as long as there is no requirement of payment or no requirement of payment
that is "commercial" (according to lawyers' interpretation of when a
payment is commercial).
|
|
These are important aspects that are highly relevant to Maneage: its
philosophy (the former) and usability (the latter). To add them, I tried to
summarize some other parts of the paper.
|
|
There weren't any conflicts in this merge.
|
|
Three such cases and they are fixed.
|
|
A few minor issues were found and fixed in the text. I also tried to
shorten it a little further.
|
|
Of the GCC dynamically linked libraries we need to manually add RPATH to
all and for `libstdc++' we also need to tell it to link with
`libiconv'. Until now, the conditional to check for libstdc++ was not
working and thus libiconv wasn't been added to it.
With this commit the conditional has been corrected and is now
working. Also, to help in reading the logs, an echo statement was added
after every call to PatchELF.
|
|
Until now, when a the raw tarball of some software wasn't usable, I would
put it under my own webpage, or `akhlaghi.org/reproduce-software'. That
same address was also used as a backup server. However, now the project has
a proper name: Maneage. So I changed the directory on my own server to
`akhlaghi.org/maneage-software'.
With this commit, this new address has replaced the old one. But to avoid
crashes in projects that haven't yet merged with the main Maneage branch,
the old `reproduce-software' still works (its actually a symbolic link to
the new directory now).
|
|
In the previous commit, we remove the `-static' flag from building PatchELF
because it wasn't necessary any more. Howver, the comment for the check
still included it and could be confusing. This is corrected with this
commit. Also, we don't need the `good_static_libc' variable (that was only
defined to pass onto PatchELF). This has also been corrected.
|
|
Until a few commits ago, PatchELF was built statically because it was used
to patch `libstdc++' at the end of the GCC building phase, but PatchELF
also depends on `libstdc++', so it would crash. However, recently when
patching the GCC libraries, we don't directly apply Patchelf to the
library, first we copy it to a temporary place, do the patching, then put
it in its proper place. So the problem above won't happen any more.
With this commit, I am thus removing the static flag from patchelf and
letting it built dynamically all the time. The main problem was that some
systems don't have a static C++ library, so PatchELF couldn't be built
statically. Instead of adding more checks, we just fixed the core
foundation of the problem.
|
|
A few minor conflicts came up that were easily fixed.
|
|
I forgot to put these in the last commit! They are now implemented.
|
|
I had another look at the text and tried to summarize it a little more
while also fixing several typos that I had just discovered! In the process,
I noticed that we hadn't actually put a link to Maneage's main Git
repository! So we now have the URL as a `git clone' command.
Also, I thought that its better to show the `TARGETS.conf' file (which we
actually talk about) in the file architecture instead of `LOCAL.conf.in'
(which we don't talk about any more!).
Finally, to be more similar with DSJ, the bibliography is now in normal
font size, not footnotesize.
|
|
Until now the software configuration parameters were defined under the
`reproduce/software/config/installation/' directory. This was because the
configuration parameters of analysis software (for example Gnuastro's
configurations) were placed under there too. But this was terribly
confusing, because the run-time options of programs falls under the
"analysis" phase of the project.
With this commit, the Gnuastro configuration files have been moved under
the new `reproduce/analysis/config/gnuastro' directory and the software
configuration files are directly under `reproduce/software/config'. A clean
build was done with this change and it didn't crash, but it may cause
crashes in derived projects, so after merging with Maneage, please
re-configure your project to see if anything has been missed. Please let us
know if there is a problem.
|
|
In the introduction I had mistakenly put "metadata" instead of "workflow",
its corrected with this commit.
|
|
Ryan O'Connor is from RDA and my principle contact for the grant. He also
kindly went over the first draft of the paper and gave useful and
encouraging comments.
|
|
I had also done this in the main branch, but I noticed this commit later!
|
|
This was only relevant for the submitted version, so I am committing it
until the next submission.
|
|
After the submission and reading through the text another time I found some
typo corrections and fixed them. Also now that David is an author, I
removed him from the people to acknowledge (David brought this up himself,
thanks David ;-)).
|
|
Since David is a co-author of the paper, I have removed him from the
Acknowledgments paragraph.
|
|
Since the journal doesn't accept supplementary files during initial
submission, I have put this link on the PDF for the referee and editors to
access if they want.
Also the `tex/img' file was added to the distribution tarball.
|
|
I was using some special Bash feature before to ignore the distribution
directory itself when copying the files, but that had some problems, so I
just used a simple for loop over a `find' command to ignore it. Also, for
now, we don't need BibLaTeX sources in the project (that is primarily for
arXiv), so to help the referee see a more cleaner contents of this
supplement file.
|
|
Thanks David ;-)! I tried to implement as many as I could. For the time
being, I just removed teh `~' between "Section" and its number, and removed
the italics on software names. Let's see what the journal editors say about
it. Otherwise, most of the suggestions were very good and indeed made the
text much better to read.
|
|
David submitted these comments by email, I (Mohammad) am committing it into
the project.
|
|
To make the text easier to read and further comply with the author
guideline, the text was shrank a little more and the two final sections
were also added on "Competing interest" and "Author contributions".
I also found the CODATA logo on Wikipedia in SVG format (vector graphics),
so I replaced the previous pixelated PNG format with the PDF (converted
from SVG).
|
|
I removed the part emphasizing one journal, but about the comment at the
end of the conclusion (to say some negative things): we have already done
that in the discussion, mentioning the caveats ;-). But you are right, we
should summarize the caveats is well.
|
|
With this commit, minor typos have been fixed from Section 4 to 6. The
majority of them are minor corrections (typos/spelling). I added just a
couple of comments/suggestions in red. If you think they are necessary
try to fit with the latest modifications. If not, just ignore them.
Really nice paper, congratulations to all contributors!!
|
|
With this commit, just minor typos have been fixed (I am rushing over
the text since we are out of time!). There are also a suggestion in
order to remove a couple of phrases to try to be more aseptic when
comparing with another project. But there is only an idea, take it or
not as you consider.
|
|
A first draft for these was added and will probably become much better in
the next few iterations.
|
|
I went through the whole paper and tried to decrease its size even futher,
also a first draft of the summarized discussion has been added.
|
|
TeXLive recently transitioned from its 2019 version to its 2020 version
thanks to Elham Saremi's trial of the this project. The fact that
traditionally Maneage installs all TeXLive packages in a per-year directory
is very annoying and required an update in the core Maneage system every
year. So I suddently recognized that we can fix this by setting a different
name for the directory holding the release year. This has been implemented
with this commit.
I have also done this change in the main Maneage branch for other projects
to also benefit from this correction.
|
|
In the previous commit, I removed the year from the basic installation of
TeXLive packages, but I forgot to correct this in the high-level TeXLive
packages! This is corrected with this commit.
|
|
It is this time of year again: TeXLive has transitioned to its 2020 release
and the year is imprinted into the installation directory of TeXLive. Until
now, we have had to manually change this year and it caused complications
and was very annoying.
With this commit, the explicit year has been removed from TeXLive's
installation and we now simply put a `maneage' instead of the year. I tried
this on another system and it worked nicely. Until the time that we can
fully install LaTeX packages from source tarballs, this is the best thing
we could do for now.
|
|
Thanks Roberto, they are now implemented.
|
|
I corrected bugs, typos, double words, and punctuations along the whole
text. I do some comments which are always highlighted with \hl{this is my
comment}, so you can identify them easily in the pdf. If you want to
remove, then you can do it easily with Ctrl+R since I think you never used
\hl. Finally, I added my name as coauthor but, please, feel free to remove
it if you want.
Note from Mohammad: since there were two other suggested commits before
this that were already merged, I rembased Roberto's commits and fixed a few
minor conflicts.
|
|
There weren't any conflicts in this merge.
|
|
With this commit, a short line telling that Maneage has tutorials
showing the workflow in a practical way has been added. Because of we
are near to the limit of words, I have added just a very short line. The
sentence does not specify any file name since the tutorial(s) is not
included (it will be in a near future).
|
|
With this commit, I have included a small line to recognize Julia
Aguilar-Cabello as the designer of the Maneage's logo.
|
|
|
|
The contents until two commits ago when I started to summarize the paper
are now in a new and shorter format: previously the discussion started on
page 25, but now it starts on page 17. It is still a little longer than
8000 words, but not as significantly as before. I will add the discussion
and also try to summarize it futher before submission.
|
|
As described in the previous commit, we had to shorten the paper to roughly
8000 words (which is significant decrease!). With this commit, I am
committing the current version of the summarized paper, where the
introduction, defintions and principles have now been summarized. I am now
summarizing the rest (describing Maneage and the discussion).
|
