| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
The DOI of the paper has been minted by IEEE, so as a step to finalize this
paper, it has been added to the REAMEME.md and the header of all PDF
pages. Along with the DOI in the header, the arXiv and Zenodo links are
also added to the header (they are small, and won't bother the reading).
|
|
The email notice of the final acceptance of this paper in CiSE has been
included in the project and the stylistic points that were raised by the
editor in chief (EiC) have also been implemented. The most important points
were:
- Including citations within the text structure (as if they would be
footnotes), so things like "see \cite{...}" should have been changed.
- Hyperlinks should be printed as footnotes (because the journal gets
actually printed).
Also, to avoid the second listing breaking between pages, it has been moved
to after the next paragraph.
|
|
Being immutable doesn't necessary mean that something is always present, so
an "always present" was also added for the reason we recommend a Git
hash. The end of the sentence was also slightly summarized to allow the
extra few words.
The re-wording of the conclusion of Active papers, was great! I just
changed the "likely" to "possible", because as Konrad mentioned in Commit
a63900bc5a8, he is now using Guix.
|
|
These are minor last minute copyedits for recently added text,
e.g. a git hash is not literally a timestamp.
|
|
Roberto has recently moved to a new position as professor in the
Universidad Internacional de La Rioja. With this commit, his short bio and
email address have thus been updated in the main paper to reflect this.
|
|
Until now, we were primarily linking people to the Gitlab fork of this
paper. However, since this paper is part of Maneage, its main repository is
on Maneage's own server at http://git.maneage.org/paper-concept.git
With this commit therefore, all the gitlab.com URLs have been corrected to
owr own Git server.
While looking into Git-related points, I also noticed that in the demo code
listing showing how to clone Maneage and start a new project, we were using
Git's old/depreciated 'master' name. Git (and almost all common
repositories) now use 'main' as the default branch name, so this has also
been corrected here.
|
|
I attended one of Peter Wittenburg's talks in the context of RDA on the
Canonical Workflow Frameworks for Research (CWFR). Afterwards I got in
touch with him about Maneage and this paper. He kindly read the paper was
very supportive of it with positive/encouraging feedback.
It was thanks to that discussion that I added CWFR in the discussion (in
the previous commit). But since that commit was focused on IAA's
suggestions, I am acknowledging Peter here.
|
|
The AMIGA team at the Instituto Astrofísica Andalucía (IAA) are very active
proponents of reproducibility. They had already provided very constructive
comments after my visit there and many subsequent interactions. So until
now, the whole team's contributions were acknowledged.
Since the last submission, several of the team members were able to kindly
invest the time in reading the paper and providing very useful comments
which are now being implemented. As a result, I was able to specifically
thank them in the paper's acknowledgments (Thanks a lot AMIGA!). Below, I
am listing the points in the order that is shown in 'git log -p -1' for
this commit.
- Javier Moldón: "PM is not defined. First appearance in the first page".
Thanks for noticing this Javier, it has been corrected.
- Javier Moldón: "In Section III. PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR LONGEVITY and
Appendix B, you mention the FAIR principles as desirable properties of
research projects and solutions, respectively which is good, but may
bring confusion. Although they are general enough, FAIR principles are
specifically for scientific data, not scientific software. Currently,
there is an initiative promoted by the Research Data Alliance (RDA),
among others, to create FAIR principles adapted to research software, and
it is called FAIR4RS (FAIR for Research Software). More information here:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/fair-4-research-software-fair4rs-wg. In
2020 there was a kick-off meeting to divide the work in 4 WG. There is
some more information in this talk:
https://sorse.github.io/programme/workshops/event-016/. I have been
following the work of WG1, and they are about the finish the first
document describing how to adapt the FAIR principles to software. Even if
all this is still work in progress, I think the paper would benefit from
mentioning the existence of this effort and noticing the diferences
between Data and Software FAIR definitions."
Thanks for highlighting this Javier, a footnote has been added for this
(hopefully faithfully summarizing it into one sentence due to space
limitations).
- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Would it be a good idea to define long-term as a
period of time; for example, 5 years is a lot in the field of computer
science (i.e. in terms of hardware and software aging), but maybe that is
not the case in other domains (e.g. Astronomy)."
Thanks Sebastian, in section 2, we do give longevity of the various
"tools" in rough units of years (this was also a suggestion by a
referee). But of course the discussion there is very generic, so going
into finer detail would probably be too subjective and bore the reader.
- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Why do you use git commit eeff5de instead of git
tags or releases for Maneage? Shown for example in the abstract of the
paper: "This paper is itself written with Maneage (project commit
eeff5de)."
Thanks for raising this important point, a sentence has been added to
explain why hashes are objective and immutable for a given history, while
tags can easily be removed or changed, or not cloned/pushed at all.
- Susana Sanchez Exposito: "We think interoperability with other research
projects would be important, do you have any plans to make maneage
interoperable with, for example, the Common Workflow Language (CWL)?".
Thanks a lot for raising this point Susana. Indeed, in the future I
really do hope we can invest enough resources on this. In the discussion,
I had already touched upon research objects as one method for
interoperability, there was also a discussion on such generic standards
in Appendix A.D.10. But to further clarify this point (given its
importance), I mentioned CWL (and also the even more generic CWFR) in the
discussion.
- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Regarding Apache Taverna, please see:"
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-engine/blob/master/README.md
Thanks a lot for this note Sebastian! I didn't know this! I wrote this
section (and visited their webpage) before their "vote"! It was a
surprize to see that their page had changed. I have modified the
explanation of Taverna to mention that it has been "retired" and use the
Github link instead.
- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Page 21: 'logevity' should be 'longevity'."
Thanks a lot for noticing this! It has been corrected :-).
- Javier Moldón: "There is a nice diagram in Johannes Köster's article on
data processing with snakemake that I find very interesting to show some
key aspects of data workflows: see Fig 1 in
https://www.authorea.com/users/165354/articles/441233-sustainable-data-analysis-with-snakemake "
This is indeed a nice diagram! I tried to cite it, but as of today, this
link is not a complete paper (with no abstract and many empty section
titles). If it was complete, I would certainly have cited it in
Snakemake's discussion.
- Javier Moldón: "Regarding the problem mentioned in the introduction about
PM not precisely identified all software versions, I would like to
mention that with Snakemake, even if the analysis are usually constructed
using other package managers such as conda, or containers, you don't need
to depend on online servers or poorly-documented software versions, as
you can now encapsulate an analysis in a tarball containing all the
software needed. You still have long-term dependency problems (as you
will need to install snakemake itself, and a particular OS), but at least
you can keep the exact software versions for a particular platform."
Thanks for highlighting this Javier. This is indeed better than nothing,
we have already discussed the dangers of this "black box" approach of
archiving binaries in many contexts, and many package managers have
it. So while I really appreciate the point (I didn't know this), to avoid
lengthening the paper, I think its fine to not mention it in the paper.
|
|
With the submission of the revision (which highlighted all the relevant
parts to the points the referees raised in the submitted PDF) it is no
longer necessary to highlight these parts.
If we get another revision request, we can add new '\new' parts for
highlighting.
|
|
In preparation for the submission of the revised manuscript, I went through
the full paper and appendices one last time. The second appendix (reviewing
existing reproducible solutions) in particular needed some attention
because some of the tools weren't properly compared with the criteria.
In the paper, I was also able to remove about 30 words, and bring our own
count (which is an over-estimation already) to below 6250.
|
|
I ran a simple Emacs spell check over the main body and the two
appendices. All discovered typos have been fixed.
|
|
With this commit, I have corrected some minor typos of this appendix. In
addition to that, I also put empty lines to separate subsections and
subsubsections appropiately (5 lines and 1 line, respectively).
|
|
With this commit, I had a look at the paper and correct some minor typos.
When possible, I tried to simplify some phrases to have less number of words.
To do that, I added some hypens when I considered it could be necessary/possible.
|
|
Having added/modified text in the supplements, Boud is now a copyright
holder of this file too.
I also added 2021 to the copyright years of paper.tex and supplement.tex.
|
|
This commit does some minor copyediting, especially of the
introduction to the supplement. There's no point complaining to
the reader about the word limit of the journal: s/he is not
interested in that. This is not the right place for discussing
journal policy. The need for summarising content and focussing on
key elements of a cohesive argument is fundamental in a world of
information overload. A&A/MNRAS/ApJ/PRD letters are generally
much worse than normal articles in terms of reproducibility
because they have to omit so many details that the reader has
to read the full articles to really know what is done. But the
reality is that letters get read a lot, because they're short
and snappy.
|
|
In the abstract the repeated benefits of Maneage (which are also mentioned
in the criteria) were removed to fit into CiSE's online submission
guidelines. In Section II (Longevity of existing tools), the paragraph that
itemized the following paragrahs as a numbered list has been removed with
the sentence that repeatedly states the importance of reproducibility in
the sciences and some branches of the industry.
With these changes our approximate automatic count has 6277 words. This is
still very slightly larger than the 6250 word limit of the
journal. However, this count is a definite over-estimation (including many
things like page titles and page numberings from the raw PDF to text
conversion). So the actual count for the journal publication should be less
than this.
A few other tiny corrections were made:
- The year of the paper and copyright in 'README.md' was set to 2021. The
copyright of the rest of the files will be set to 2021 after the next
merge with Maneage soon (the years of core infrastructure copyrights has
already been corrected there).
- Mohammadreza's name was added in 'README.md'.
- The line to import the "necessity" appendix has been commented in the
version to have the full paper in one PDF (to be upladed to arXiv or
Zenodo).
- The supplement PDF now starts with '\appendices' so the sections have
the same labels as the single-PDF version.
|
|
Until now, the build strategy of the paper was to have a single output PDF
that either contains (1) the full paper with appendices in the same paper
(2) only the main body of the paper with no appencies.
But the editor in chief of CiSE recently recommended publishing the
appendices as supplements that is a separate PDF (on its webpage). So with
this commit, the project can make either (1) a single PDF (containing both
the main body and the appendices) that will be published on arXiv and will
be the default output (this is the same as before). (2) two PDFs: one that
is only the main body of the paper and another that is only the appendices.
Since the appendices will be printed as a PDF in any case now, the old
'--no-appendix' option has been replaced by '--supplement'. Also, the
internal shell/TeX variable 'noappendix' has been renamed to
'separatesupplement'.
|
|
Since we have a long list of Copyright statements at the top, I thought its
easier to just move the copyright notice to the top of 'paper.tex' also.
In the acknowledgments, the paragraph on Maneage was slighltly summarized
to save a few words and still be clear. Also, the long name of the Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, was
summarized to Japanese MEXT.
In the biographies, the '-at' (replacing '@' in the emails) was changed to
'-AT' to be more clear to the eye that its just a place holder.
|
|
As recommended by Lorena Barba (editor in chief of CiSE), we should prepare
the appendices as a separate "Supplement" for the journal. But we also want
them to be appendices within the paper when built for arXiv.
As a first step, with this commit, each appendix has been put in a separate
'tex/src/appendix-*.tex' file and '\input' into the paper. We will then be
able to conditionally include them in the PDF or not.
Also, as recommended by Lorena, the general "necessity for reproducible
research" appendix isn't included (possibly going into the webpage later).
|
|
After adding Mohammadreza as an author of the paper, we forgot to add him
as a copyright holder at the start of the paper.
|
|
This commit makes many small wording fixes, mainly to Appendix A.
It also insert "quotes" around some of the titles fields in
'tex/src/references.tex', since otherwise capitalisation is lost (DNA
becomes Dna; 'of Reinhart and Rogoff' becomes 'of reinhart and rogoff'; and
so on). I didn't do this for all titles, because some Have All Words
Capitalised, which blocks the .bib file from choosing a consistent style.
|
|
Mohammadreza has made significant contributions to the text of the paper
and also the source. However his contributions to the text came after the
initial submission, so until now, he was not added as an author. The reason
we waited for this was that no responses were given by CiSE editors, on the
inquiry of the possibility of adding a new author at this phase.
With this commit, following approval from the editors, Mohammadreza's
information has been added to the manuscript as an author to refrain from
delays in submitting the manuscript revision.
While merging with the 'master' branch, Mohammad also done some minor edits
to the other biographies to follow a similar format.
|
|
Some minor edits were made to the paper to shorten it. In particular the
example of IPOL was removed from the main body of the paper, and we'll just
rely on the more extensive review of IPOL in the appendix. I also updated
the referee report to account for the new Appendix A that is just an
extended introduction.
Also, I noticed that the Menke+20 paper that we replicate here has recently
been published in the iScience journal. So its bibliography was updated
from the bioarXiv information to the journal information.
Also, the number of words (after removing abstract and captions and
accounting for figures) is now only printed when the project is built with
'--no-appendix'. This was done because this information is
extra/annoying/unnecessary for the case where there is an appendix.
|
|
In the first/long draft of this work, we had a good introduction on the
necessity of reproducibility. But we were forced to remove it because of
word-count limits. Having moved a major portion of the previous work into
the appendices, I thought it would be good to put that introduction as a
first appendix also, focused on the necessity for reproducibile research.
|
|
Following Boud's point in the previous commit, I tried to clarify the point
in the text that we are only talking about hand-written source files: in
short, in this part of the paper, we are not talking abou the
version/snapshot for arXiv which needs figures and many extra automatically
built files. We are just talking about the raw, hand-written files. Trying
to convince people how good it is to keep the raw files separate from
automatically generated files ;-).
Also, while looking around in other parts of the main body of the paper, I
tried to edit/clarify a few points and summarize/shorten others.
|
|
This commit fixes 'automaticly', 'mega byte', 'terra byte'.
It also changes 'will be far less than a mega byte' to 'should be
less than a megabyte'. The reason for 'should' is that in some
cases, providing a small data set in the package is useful, as in
[1]. Of course, [1] would be only 0.9 Mb in size, including the
data sets, instead of 1.3 Mb, if the author, whoever that may
happen to be, had excluded the useless (produced) file
'paper-tmp.eps'. :P Case [2] is 0.4 Mb.
These two tar archives are for ArXiv, so they also contain
produced .eps files. So maybe in principle 'far less than'
is right. However, on neither [3] nor [4], trying to follow
the recommendations :), are any of the "useful" versions of
single file archives smaller than the ArXiv version. The
git bundles are bigger because of the git history, and the
'software' archives are 0.5 to 0.6 Gb because they include
almost everything.
However, stating something that is possible in principle but
not done in practice would be misleading. So I would not include
'far less'.
[1] https://zenodo.org/record/3951152/files/subpoisson-252cf1c-arXiv.tar.gz
[2] https://zenodo.org/record/4062461/files/elaphrocentre-724a7c8-arXiv.tar.gz
[3] https://zenodo.org/record/3951152
[4] https://zenodo.org/record/4062461
|
|
This commit fixes the labels alliez19, claerbout1992, schwab2000
which were multiply defined. The problem was using \citeappendix
instead of \cite for these in the appendix, even though they
are first used in the official part of the article.
You must do './project make clean' before recreating the pdf
in order for this to compile correctly. (Otherwise you'll waste
time re-using old files; this means that one of our 'make'
dependencies could in principle be improved.)
With this change, these references in the pdf are (for me)
correct clickable links back to [5], [1], [11], respectively.
[If you use xpdf (poppler library), remember the 'b' key for
navigate back from a clicked internal link quickly.]
This way you can quickly navigate between the appendix text
and the references used, and you avoid LaTeX warning about
'multiply defined labels'.
|
|
This commit provides a little bit of minor copyediting, mainly in
the appendices, based on and around changing the casual 'isn't',
'don't' and other contractions with 'not' to a less casual style
of language. A few of the changes aim to improve the meaning in
tiny ways.
|
|
The sentence sounds better with 'the'.
|
|
It was recently announced by both RedHat[1] and CentOS[2] that CentOS 8
(which was meant to end LTS at 2030) will be terminated 8 years early (by
the end of 2021). This is a perfect example of the longevity issues when
relying on third-party providers.
With this commit, I added this as a parenthesis after mentioning Ubuntu's
LTS web address. Some minor edits were also done in other parts of this
paragraph.
[1] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-stream-building-innovative-future-enterprise-linux
[2] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream
|
|
Today, Richard Stallman sent a mail in 'info-gnu@gnu.org' (GNU's public
announcements mailing list) about proprietary obsolescence (or planned
obsolescence) [1]. After looking into it, I saw there is actually a
Wikipedia page for this concept. Since it direclty relates to our Free
software criteria, I thought its good to use this technical term there.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-obsolescence.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
|
|
I just remembered that in the paragraph we compare with Jupyter, another
important point is that with based on the modularity principle, people can
choose their favorite text editor and aren't limited to one. I also tried
to remove redundant parts to avoid adding too many extra words.
|
|
Thanks a lot Boud for adding that script in your own project and linking it
here. Since the raw file (without context of the whole project) is very
hard to understand for the users, I switched the URL to the navigable URL
the link is actually on the filename. It will always show the most recent
version of this script, not the particular snapshot of now. But infact that
is better, since we can make it better and improve it over time. Maybe even
by the end of this paper's referee review will be able to include it in
Maneage's core branch.
I also removed the link to this discussion at the first paragraph of
Section IV (proof of concept). Since that is just the introduction, and
going into this level of detail there could be confusing for the
readers. Having the name of the script in the proper place is more direct
and understandable for the readers.
Thanks again Boud for the nice work on this ;-).
|
|
This commit adds the SWH URL of the statistical verification
script to the paper and tidies up the corresponding answer in
'1-answer.txt'. The script file includes more extensive
documentation than the earlier 'make' version of the method.
|
|
While going through Mohammad-reza's recent two commits, I noticed that we
had missed an importnat discussion on modularity in this version of the
paper (discussing how file management should also be modular resulting in
cheaper archival, and thus better longevity), so a few sentences were added
under criteria 2 (Modularity).
Mohammad-reza's edits were also generally very good and helped clarify many
points. I only reset the part that we discuss the problems with POSIX, and
not being able to produce bitwise reproducible software (which systems like
Guix work very hard at, and thus need root permissions). I felt the edit
missed the main point here (that while bitwise reproducibility of the
software is good, it is not always necessary).
|
|
Before this commit, there were discussions in different sections related to
POSIX compliance and features. Since the relevant Cmpleteness criterion has
been changed to execution within a Unix-like OS, such dicussions had to be
modifies as well.
With this commit, the parts that were related to condition (1) of the
Completeness criterion have been modified to be relevant to new Unix-like
OS requirement. Also, few spelling problems were fixed.
|
|
Before this commit, condition (1) for the Completeness criterion was
referring to POSIX compliance. POSIX is a very detailed dynamic standard
which goes under revision continuously and not a lot of operating systems,
GNU/Linux included are completely/officially POSIX-compliant. Furthermore,
not all sections of the huge 4000 pages standard are really important
specifically to the current Maneage functionality.
With this commit, condition (1) has been replaced by a looser condition of
execution within a Unix-like OS. Also since the term environment might have
been mistaken with the term "Operating Environment", it was replaced by the
unmistakable term "environment variables" in conditions (3) and (5). Last
but not least, condition (2) was made more restrict by adding ASCII
encoding as the condition for storing the plain text files.
TO-DO:
POSIX could contain valuable ideas regarding portability of programming
practices. These can be taken advantage of later in providing necessary and
sufficient conditions for project completeness. Another idea could be to
make LFS construct or something else as a sharp definition for what we mean
by minimal Unix-like OS.
|
|
Some minor conflicts that came up during the merge were fixed.
|
|
Until now, Maneage only provided the commit hashes (of the project and
Maneage) as LaTeX macros to use in your paper. However, they are too
cryptic and not really human friendly (unless you have access to the Git
history on a computer).
With this commit, to make things easier for the readers, the date of both
commits are also available as LaTeX macros for use in the paper. The date
of the Maneage commit is also included in the acknowledgements.
Also, the paragraph above the acknowledgements has been updated with better
explanation on why adding this acknowledgement in the science papers is
good/necessary.
|
|
This only concerns the TeX sources in the default branch. In case you don't
use them, there should only be a clean conflict in 'paper.tex' (that is
obvious and easy to fix). Conflicts may only happen in some of the
'tex/src/preamble-*.tex' files if you have actually changed them for your
project. But generally any conflict that does arise by this commit with
your project branch should be very clear and easy to fix and test.
In short, from now on things will even be easier: any LaTeX configuration
that you want to do for your project can be done in
'tex/src/preamble-project.tex', so you don't have to worry about any other
LaTeX preamble file. They are either templates (like the ones for PGFPlots
and BibLaTeX) or low-level things directly related to Maneage. Until now,
this distinction wasn't too clear.
Here is a summary of the improvements:
- Two new options to './project make': with '--highlight-new' and
'--highlight-notes' it is now possible to activate highlighting on the
command-line. Until now, there was a LaTeX macro for this at the start
of 'paper.tex' (\highlightchanges). But changing that line would change
the Git commit hash, making it hard for the readers to trust that this
is the same PDF. With these two new run-time options, the printed commit
hash will not changed.
- paper.tex: the sentences are formatted as one sentence per line (and one
line per sentence). This helps in version controlling narrative and
following the changes per sentence. A description of this format (and
its advantages) is also included in the default text.
- The internal Maneage preambles have been modified:
- 'tex/src/preamble-header.tex' and 'tex/src/preamble-style.tex' have
been merged into one preamble file called
'tex/src/preamble-maneage-default-style.tex'. This helps a lot in
simply removing it when you use a journal style file for example.
- Things like the options to highlight parts of the text are now put in
a special 'tex/src/preamble-maneage.tex'. This helps highlight that
these are Maneage-specific features that are independent of the style
used in the paper.
- There is a new 'tex/src/preamble-project.tex' that is the place you
can add your project-specific customizations.
|
|
These can help a first-time reader of 'paper.tex'.
|
|
Until now, the Maneage-only features of LaTeX where mixed with
'tex/src/preamble-project.tex' (which is reserved for project-specific
things). But we want to move the highlighting features (that have started
here) into the core Maneage branch, so its best for these Maneage-specific
features to be in a Maneage-specific preamble file.
With this commit, a hew 'tex/src/preamble-maneage.tex' has been created for
this purpose and the highlighting modes have been put in there. In the
process, I noticed that 'tex/src/preamble-project.tex' doesn't have a
copyright! This has been corrected.
|
|
Roberto sent me his summarized CV which is now being included and I also
removed the extra statements about non-degree things from Raul and my own
biography (like mentioning Gnuastro, and scientific interests). To be
short, we are only mentioning degrees and positions. For Raul, I added his
M.Sc institute.
|
|
After Mohammad-reza sent me his commit on an improved definition for
longevity, we had an indepth discussion (through a video-conference) to
avoid complexities in the terminology, while staying on point and
word-count.
In this commit/merge, I am including the improved version of the definition
of longevity, and the newly added term "functionality" (instead of
"usability" that Mohammad-reza was originally complaining to).
|
|
The paragraph was slightly shortened, while keeping the main points.
|
|
Before this commit, Longetivity was defined on the basis of the term
usability. Although the scope and context of the term has been mentioned
right after its use, this could have caused confusion with the keyword
"usability" in the field of software engineering.
With this commit, Longetivity definition has been rephrased in a way that
it would not require "usability". Furthermore, since longetivity would
logically require the availability of the machines and platforms during the
time of re-use, this has been explicitly mentioned in the definition.
|
|
Following Boud's great suggestion, I also summarized my CV to be less
than 40 words.
|
|
Following Boud's great suggestion, I also summarized my CV to be less than
40 words.
|
|
This commit provides shorter CVs for me (Boud) + David
in order to get closer to the 6500 word limit. Our CVs
are the least significant part of the paper.
|
|
The only issue that still remains is how to address statistical
reproducibility, and I am in touch with Boud to do this in the best way
possible (it has been highlighted with '#####'s in the answers.
|
