| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Konrad had kindly gone through the paper and the appendices with very good
feedback that is now being addressed in the paper (thanks a lot Konrad!):
- IPOL recently also allows Python code. So the respective parts of the
description of IPOL have been updated. To address the dependency issue, I
also added a sentence that only certain dependencies (with certain
versions) are acceptable.
- On Active Papers (AP: which is written by Konrad) corrections were made
based on the following parts of his comments:
- "The fundamental issue with ActivePapers is its platform dependence on
either Java or Python, neither of which is attractive."
- "The one point which is overemphasized, in my opinion, is the necessity
to download large data files if some analysis script refers to it. That
is true in the current implementation (which I consider a research
prototype), but not a fundamental feature of the approach. Implementing
an on-demand download strategy is not particularly complicated, it just
needs to be done, and it wasn't a priority for my own use cases."
- "A historical anecdote: you mention that HDF View requires registering
for download. This is true today, but wasn't when I started
ActivePapers. Otherwise I'd never have built on HDF5. What happened is
that the HDF Group, formerly part of NCSA and thus a public research
infrastructure, was turned into a semi-commercial entity. They have
committed to keeping the core HDF5 library Open Source, but not any of
the tooling around it. Many users have moved away from HDF5 as a
consequence. The larger lesson is that Richard Stallman was right: if
software isn't GPLed, then you never know what will happen to it in the
future."
- On Guix, some further clarification was added to address Konrad's quote
below (with a link to the blog-post mentioned there). In short, I
clarified that I mean storing the Guix commit hash with any respective
high-level analysis change is the extra step.
- "I also looked at the discussion of Nix and Guix, which is what I am
mainly using today. It is mostly correct as well, the one exception
being the claim that 'it is up to the user to ensure that their created
environment is recorded properly for reproducibility in the
future'. The environment is *recorded* in all detail,
automatically. What requires some effort is extracting a human-readable
description of that environment. For Guix, I have described how to do
this in a blog post
(https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/reproducible-computations-with-guix/),
and in less detail in a recent CiSE paper
(https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02877319). There should
definitely be a better user interface for this, but it's no more than a
user interface issue. What is pretty nice in Guix by now is the user
interface for re-creating an environment, using the "guix time-machine"
subcommand."
- The sentence on Software Heritage being based on Git was reworded to fit
this comment of Konrad: "The plural sounds quite optimistic. As far as I
know, SWH is the only archive of its kind, and in view of the enormous
resources and long-time commitments it requires, I don't expect to see a
second one."
- When introducing hashes, Konrad suggested the following useful paper that
shows how they are used in content-based storage:
DOI:10.1109/MCSE.2019.2949441
- On Snakemake, Konrad had the following comment: "[A system call in Python
is] No slower than from bash, or even from any C code. Meaning no slower
than Make. It's the creation of a new process that takes most of the
time." So the point was just shifted to the many quotations necessary for
calling external programs and how it is best suited for a Python-based
project.
In addition some minor typos that I found during the process are also
fixed.
|
|
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.
|
|
This commit makes some minor fixes following the hardwired non-numerical
solution to the cross-referencing issue between the main article and the
supplement, such as fixing "lineage like lineage" and missing closing
parentheses.
From Mohammad: while re-basing the commit over the 'master' branch, I also
added Boud'd name at the top of the copyright holders of the appendices.
|
|
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).
|
|
Until now, in the appendices we were simply using '\ref' to refer to
different parts of the published paper. However, when built in
'--supplement' mode, the main body of the paper is a separate PDF and
having links to a separate PDF is not impossible, but far too complicated.
However, having the links adds to the richness of the text and helps point
readers to specific parts of the paper.
With this commit, there is a LaTeX conditional anywhere in the appendices
that we want to refer the reader to sections/figures in the main body. When
building a separate PDF, the resepective section/figure is cited in a
descriptive mode (like "Seciton discussing longevity of tools"). However,
when the appendices go into the same PDF as the main body, the '\ref's
remain.
|
|
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'.
|
|
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).
|
