| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
There were only three very small conflicts that have been fixed.
|
|
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'--no-appendix' option has been replaced by '--supplement'.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'.
|
|
Having entered 2021, it was necessary to update the copyright years at the
top of the source files. We recommend that you do this for all your
project-specific source files also.
|
|
Until now, there was no warning when the 'maneage' branch didn't exist in
the Git history. This can happen when you forget to push the 'maneage'
branch to a remote for your project, and you later clone your project from
that remote (for example on another computer). We use the 'maneage' branch
to report the latest commit hash and date in the final paper (which can
greatly help future readers). Since we check the 'maneage' branch on every
run of './project make' (in 'initialize.mk') this would result in a printed
statement like this:
fatal: Not a valid object name maneage
Also until now, the description of what to do when TeXLive wasn't installed
properly wasn't complete: it didn't mention that it is necessary to delete
the TeXLive target files. This could confuse users (they would re-run
'./project configure -e', but with no effect).
With this commit, for the 'maneage' branch issue a complete warning will be
printed. Telling the user what to do to get the 'maneage' branch (and thus
fix this warning). Also, the LaTeX macros that go in the paper are now red
when the 'maneage' branch doesn't exist, telling the user to see the
printed warning (thus encouraging the user to get the branch). For the
TeXLive issue, the necessary commands to run are now also printed in the
warning.
|
|
Some minor conflicts that came up during the merge were fixed.
|
|
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.
|
|
This commit fixes the error of trying to run bibtex on
appendix.tex when the --no-appendix option is selected.
A hardwired hack, appropriate only for this specific paper,
replaces the more-than-three-author parts of two long author
lists by "et al." To test this without having to redownload
the menke file, first do
"rm -fv .build/tex/build/*.aux .build/tex/build/*.bbl"
and then "./project make --no-appendix" a few times.
This commit should reduce the word length by about 70 words.
|
|
This commit updates "paper.tex" and "peer-review/1-answer.txt"
for the first 15 (out of 59!) reviewer points, excluding
points 2 (not yet done) and 9 (README-hacking.md needs
tidying).
A fix to "reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk" for the
links in the appendices is also done in this commit (the same
algorithm as for paper.tex is added). The links in the appendices
are not (yet) clickable.
|
|
A new directory has been added at the top of the project's source called
'peer-review'. The raw reviews of the paper by the editors and referees has
been added there as '1-review.txt'. All the main points raised by the
referees have been listed in a numbered list and addressed (mostly) in
'1-answers.txt'. The text of the paper now also includes all the
implemented answers to the various points.
|
|
Until now, the core Maneage 'paper.tex' had a '\highlightchanges' macro
that defines two LaTeX macros: '\new' and '\tonote'.
When '\highlightchanges' was defined, anything that was written within
'\new' became dark green (highlighting new things that have been
added). Also, anything that was written in '\tonote' was put within a '[]'
and became dark red (to show that there is a note here that should be
addressed later).
When '\highlightchanges' wasn't defined, anything within the '\new' element
would be black (like the rest of the text), and the things in '\tonote'
would not be shown at all.
Commenting the '\newcommand{\highlightchanges}{}' line within 'paper.tex'
(to toggle the modes above) would create a different Git hash and has to be
committed.
But this different commit hash could create a false sense in the reader
that other things have also been changed and the only way they could
confirm was to actually go and look into the project history (which they
will not usually have time to do, and thus won't be able to trust the two
modes of the text).
Also, the added highlights and the note highlights were bundeled together
into one macro, so you couldn't only have one of them.
With this commit, the choice of highlighting either one of the two is now
done as two new run-time options to the './project' script (which are
passed to the Makefiles, and written into the 'project.tex' file which is
loaded into 'paper.tex'). In this way, we can generate two PDFs with the
same Git commit (project's state): one with the selected highlights and
another one without it.
This issue actually came up for me while implementing the changes here: we
need to submit one PDF to the journal/referees with highlights on the added
features. But we also need to submit another PDF to arXiv and Zenodo
without any highlights. If the PDFs have different commit hashes, the
referees may associate it with other changes in any part of the work. For
example https://oadoi.org/10.22541/au.159724632.29528907 that mentions
"Another version of the manuscript was published on arXiv: 2006.03018",
while the only difference was a few words in the abstract after the journal
complained on the abstract word-count of our first submission (where the
commit hashes matched with arXiv/Zenodo).
|
|
Until now, when the 'pdf-build-final' configuration variable (defined in
'reproduce/analysis/config/pdf-build.conf') was given any string a PDF
would be built. This was very confusing, because people could put a 'no'
and the PDF would still be built!
With this commit, only when this variable has a value of 'yes' will the PDF
be built. If given any other string (or no string at all), it will not
produce a PDF.
This issue was reported by Zahra Sharbaf.
|
|
Given the referee reports, after discussing with the editors of CiSE, we
decided that it is important to include the complete appendix we had before
that included a thorough review of existing tools and methods. However, the
appendix will not be published in the paper (due to the strict word-count
limit). It will only be used in the arXiv/Zenodo versions of the paper.
This actually created a technical problem: we want the commit hash of the
project source to remain the same when the paper is built with an appendix
or without it.
To fix this problem the choice of including an appendix has gone into the
'project' script as a run-time option called '--no-appendix'. So by default
(when someone just runs './project make'), the PDF will have an appendix,
but when we want to submit to the journal, or when the appendix isn't
needed for a certain reason, we can use this new option. The appendix also
has its own separate bibliography.
Some other corrections made in this commit:
1. Some new references were added that had an '_' in their source, they
were corrected in 'references.tex'.
2. I noticed that 'preamble-style.tex' is not actually used in this paper,
so it has been deleted.
|
|
Only two small conflicts came up:
* The addition of the hardware architecture macro in 'paper.tex' (which
was removed for now, but will be added as the referee has requested
within the text).
* The usage of "" around directory variables in 'paper.mk'.
|
|
Until now, no machine-related specifications were being documented in the
workflow. This information can become helpful when observing differences in
the outcome of both software and analysis segments of the workflow by
others (some software may behave differently based on host machine).
With this commit, the host machine's 'hardware class' and 'byte-order' are
collected and now available as LaTeX macros for the authors to use in the
paper. Currently it is placed in the acknowledgments, right after
mentioning the Maneage commit.
Furthermore, the project and configuration scripts are now capable of
dealing with input directory names that have SPACE (and other special
characters) by putting them inside double-quotes. However, having spaces
and metacharacters in the address of the build directory could cause
build/install failure for some software source files which are beyond the
control of Maneage. So we now check the user's given build directory
string, and if the string has any '@', '#', '$', '%', '^', '&', '*', '(',
')', '+', ';', and ' ' (SPACE), it will ask the user to provide a different
directory.
|
|
Some very minor conflicts came up and were easily corrected. They were
mostly in parts that are also shared with the demonstration in the core
Maneage branch.
|
|
The '.bbl' suffix in the comment of one call to LaTeX was incorrectly
written as '.bb'.
|
|
Until now, when the bibliography file ('paper.bbl') had a LaTeX-related
error (for example the journal name was a LaTeX macro that isn't defined),
the first 'pdflatex' command that is run before 'biber' would crash, not
allowing the project to reach 'biber'. So the user would have to manually
remove 'paper.bbl' before running './project make'.
With this commit, we remove any possibly existing 'paper.bbl' file before
rebuilding it. Generally, this also helps in keeping things clean during
the generation of the new bibliography.
This bug was found by Mahdieh Nabavi.
|
|
In 'README.md' I tried to explain a little better that TeXLive will only
install its necessary packages, not the full TeXLive library! Also in
paper.mk, I slightly improved the comments with very minor edits.
Both these parts are slated to go into the core Maneage branch, so its
important to maintain them here for now.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
Publishing a paper on reproducible research without making it easy for
readers to read the references would defeat the point. Of course we have to
make some compromises with some journals' reluctance to shift towards the
free world, but to satisfy scientific ethics, we should at least provide
clickable URLs to the references, preferably to the ArXiv version if
available [1], and also to the DOI, again, preferably to an open-access
version of the URL if available.
I was not able to fully get this done in the .bst file, so there's an
sed/tr hack done to the .bbl file in `reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk` to
tidy up commas and spaces.
This commit also reverts some of the hacks in the Akhlaghi IAU Symposium
`tex/src/references.tex` entry, to match the improved .bst file,
`tex/src/IEEEtran_openaccess.bst`, provided here with a different name to
the original, in order to satisfy the LaTeX licence.
[1] https://cosmo.torun.pl/blog/arXiv_refs
|
|
In time, some of the copyright license description had been mistakenly
shortened to two paragraphs instead of the original three that is
recommended in the GPL. With this commit, they are corrected to be exactly
in the same three paragraph format suggested by GPL.
The following files also didn't have a copyright notice, so one was added
for them:
reproduce/software/make/README.md
reproduce/software/bibtex/healpix.tex
reproduce/analysis/config/delete-me-num.conf
reproduce/analysis/config/verify-outputs.conf
|
|
Following the fact that the DSJ editor decided that this paper doesn't fit
into their scope, we decided to submit it to IEEE's Computing in Science
and Engineering (CiSE). So with this commit the text was re-written to fit
into their style and word-count limitations.
|
|
The paper is no longer using LuaLaTeX, but raw LaTeX (that saves a DVI), it
is so much faster! Initially I had used LuaLaTeX to use special fonts to
resemble the CODATA Data Science Journal, but all that overhead is no
longer necessary. Therefore I also removed the MANY extra LaTeX packages we
were importing. The paper builds and is able to construct one of its images
(the git-branching figure) with only 7 packages beyond the minimal
TeX/LaTeX installation. Also in terms of processing it is so much faster.
The text is just temporary now, and mainly just a place holder. With the
next commit, I'll fill it with proper text.
|
|
A few small conflicts showed up here and there. They are fixed with this
merge.
|
|
Until now, throughout Maneage we were using the old name of "Reproducible
Paper Template". But we have finally decided to use Maneage, so to avoid
confusion, the name has been corrected in `README-hacking.md' and also in
the copyright notices.
Note also that in `README-hacking.md', the main Maneage branch is now
called `maneage', and the main Git remote has been changed to
`https://gitlab.com/maneage/project' (this is a new GitLab Group that I
have setup for all Maneage-related projects). In this repository there is
only one `maneage' branch to avoid complications with the `master' branch
of the projects using Maneage later.
|
|
A few minor conflicts occurred and were fixed.
|
|
Until now, the configuration Makefiles (in
`reproduce/software/config/installation' and `reproduce/analysis/config')
had a `.mk' suffix, similar to the workhorse Makefiles. Although they are
indeed Makefiles, but given their nature (to only keep configuration
parameters), it is confusing (especially to early users) for them to also
have a `.mk' (similar to the analysis or software building Makefiles).
To address this issue, with this commit, all the configuration Makefiles
(in those directories) are now given a `.conf' suffix. This is also assumed
for all the files that are loaded.
The configuration (software building) and running of the template have been
checked with this change from scratch, but please report any error that may
not have been noticed.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE AND WILL CAUSE CRASHES OR UNEXPECTED BEHAVIORS
FOR PROJECTS THAT HAVE BRANCHED FROM THIS TEMPLATE. PLEASE CORRECT THE
SUFFIX OF ALL YOUR PROJECT'S CONFIGURATION MAKEFILES (IN THE DIRECTORIES
ABOVE), OTHERWISE THEY AREN'T AUTOMATICALLY LOADED ANYMORE.
|
|
Until now, I was writing the paper without the template. But we will soon
be adding a tutorial to the template, and I thought it will be good to have
an example demonstration here too. So I just brought the hole project into
the template structure, allowing us to add the template analysis later when
its ready, and also allowing us to easily reproduce this paper ofcourse
(without having to worry about the host's TeXLive installation.
|
|
Until now, the only verification that the template provided was the
published PDF. Users had to manually compare the published and generated
PDFs (numbers, plots, tables) and see if they obtained the same
result. However, this type of manual verification is not good and is prone
to frustration and missing important differences.
With this commit, a new Makefile has been added in the analysis steps:
`verify.mk'. It provides facilities to easily verify the results that go
into the paper. For example tables that go into making the paper's plots,
or the LaTeX macros that blend into the text. See the updated parts in
`README-hacking.md` for a more complete explanation.
This completes task #15497.
|
|
Now that its 2020, its necessary to include this year in the copyright
statements.
|
|
Until now, to work on a project, it was necessary to `./configure' it and
build the software. Then we had to run `.local/bin/make' to run the project
and do the analysis every time. If the project was a shared project between
many users on a large server, it was necessary to call the `./for-group'
script.
This way of managing the project had a major problem: since the user
directly called the lower-level `./configure' or `.local/bin/make' it was
not possible to provide high-level control (for example limiting the
environment variables). This was especially noticed recently with a bug
that was related to environment variables (bug #56682).
With this commit, this problem is solved using a single script called
`project' in the top directory. To configure and build the project, users
can now run these commands:
$ ./project configure
$ ./project make
To work on the project with other users in a group these commands can be
used:
$ ./project configure --group=GROUPNAME
$ ./project make --group=GROUPNAME
The old options to both configure and make the project are still valid. Run
`./project --help' to see a list. For example:
$ ./project configure -e --host-cc
$ ./project make -j8
The old `configure' script has been moved to
`reproduce/software/bash/configure.sh' and is called by the new `./project'
script. The `./project' script now just manages the options, then passes
control to the `configure.sh' script. For the "make" step, it also reads
the options, then calls Make. So in the lower-level nothing has
changed. Only the `./project' script is now the single/direct user
interface of the project.
On a parallel note: as part of bug #56682, we also found out that on some
macOS systems, the `DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH' environment variable has to be set
to blank. This is no problem because RPATH is automatically set in macOS
and the executables and libraries contain the absolute address of the
libraries they should link with. But having `DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH' can
conflict with some low-level system libraries and cause very hard to debug
linking errors (like that reported in the bug report).
This fixes bug #56682.
|
|
While reviewing Prasenjit's commits, I noticed that we had forgot to add
the citation for TIDES, also to make things clear, the program/library
build rules are now sorted alphabetically.
Finally, I noticed that after building the TiKZ PDF figures, it is crashing
(like on Prasenjit's computer). After looking around, I noticed its because
we were setting the of the `TEXINPUTS' environment variable to be the
installed TeX Live directory (which was ultimately redundant because by
default TeX will look into where it was installed). The important thing is
just that we remove any possible value the host system has, not to set new
directories.
|
|
Until now, the `tex/build' symbolic link was put in the clone/source tree
when the build-directory's `tex' directory was being built. Thanks to
Roberto Baena, we just found a bug because of this behavior: when a second
group member is trying to build the pipeline, since the build directory's
`tex' directory already exists, no `tex/build' will be put in their
clone/source directory. As a result, the PDF building will crash.
To fix this (and keep things organized), the two `tex/build' and `tex/tikz'
links (to the build directory) are now built in the configure step while it
is building all the top-level directories. They are no longer built within
the Makefiles.
Also, a comment was added on top of every directory built during the
configuration phase to be clear.
This fixes bug #56362.
|
|
When we need to quote the new-line character we end the line with a
backslash (`\'). Until now, our convention has been to put all such
backslashes under each other to help in visual inspection.
But this causes a lot of confusion in version control: if only one line's
length is larger, the whole block will be marked as changed and thus makes
it hard to visually see the actual change. It also makes debuging the code
(adding some temporary lines) hard.
With this commit, I went through all the files and tried to fix all such
cases so only a single white space character is between the last command
character and the backslash. Where there was an empty line (ending with a
backslash, to help in visually separating the code into blocks), I put the
backslash right under the previous line's.
This completes task #15259.
|
|
Until now, there were erros in the citation of Astrometry-net and Scamp
papers.
With this commit, we fix these problems. The Swarp bibtex has also been
modify to follow the stetic of the citation style we have right now in
the project.
We also added the `dependency-bib.tex' as a prerequisite of `paper.bbl'.
|
|
Until now, the software building and analysis steps of the pipeline were
intertwined. However, these steps (of how to build a software, and how to
use it) are logically completely independent.
Therefore with this commit, the pipeline now has a new architecture
(particularly in the `reproduce' directory) to emphasize this distinction:
The `reproduce' directory now has the two `software' and `analysis'
subdirectories and the respective parts of the previous architecture have
been broken up between these two based on their function. There is also no
more `src' directory. The `config' directory for software and analysis is
now mixed with the language-specific directories.
Also, some of the software versions were also updated after some checks
with their webpages.
This new architecture will allow much more focused work on each part of the
pipeline (to install the software and to run them for an analysis).
|
