| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Until now, Maneage had undergone some updates.
With this commit, those updates have been imported and the conflicts that
resulted were fixed. They were all cosmetic and had no effect on the
analysis. The most significant one was about the change in the format of
'INPUTS.conf'.
In the process, I also noticed that the IEEEtran LaTeX package is now
called 'ieeetran' (the 'tlmgr' of TeXLive 2022 was failing).
|
|
This commit primarily affects the configuration step of Maneage'd projects,
and in particular, updated versions of the many of the software (see
P.S.). So it shouldn't affect your high-level analysis other than the
version bumps of the software you use (and the software's possibly
improve/changed behavior).
The following software (and thus their dependencies) couldn't be updated as
described below:
- Cryptography: isn't building because it depends on a new
setuptools-rust package that has problems
(https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?61731), so it has been
commented in 'versions.conf'.
- SecretStorage: because it depends on Cryptography.
- Keyring: because it depends on SecretStorage.
- Astroquery: because it depends on Keyring.
This is a "squashed" commit after rebasing a development branch of 60
commits corresponding to a roughly two-month time interval. The following
people contributed to this branch.
- Boudewijn Roukema added all the R software infrastructure and the R
packages, as well as greatly helping in fixing many bugs during the
update.
- Raul Infante-Sainz helped in testing and debugging the build.
- Pedram Ashofteh Ardakani found and fixed a bug.
- Zahra Sharbaf helped in testing and found several bugs.
Below a description of the most noteworthy points is given.
- Software tarballs: all updated software now have a unified format
tarball (ustar; if not possible, pax) and unified compression (Lzip) in
Maneage's software repository in Zenodo
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3883409). For more on this See
https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15699 . This won't affect any extra
software you would like to add; you can use any format recognized by
GNU Tar, and all common compression algorithms. This new requirement is
only for software that get merged to the core Maneage branch.
- Metastore (and thus libbsd and libmd) moved to highlevel: Metastore
(and the packages it depends on) is a high-level product that is only
relevant during the project development (like Emacs!): when the user
wants the file meta data (like dates) to be unchanged after checking
out branches. So it should be considered a high-level software, not
basic. Metastore also usually causes many more headaches and error
messages, so personally, I have stopped using it! Instead I simply
merge my branches in a separate clone, then pull the merge commit: in
this way, the files of my project aren't re-written during the checkout
phase and therefore their dates are untouched (which can conflict with
Make's dates on configuration files).
- The un-official cloned version of Flex (2.6.4-91 until this commit) was
causing problems in the building of Netpbm, so with this commit, it has
been moved back to version 2.6.4.
- Netpbm's official page had version 10.73.38 as the latest stable
tarball that was just released in late 2021. But I couldn't find our
previously-used version 10.86.99 anywhere (to see when it was released
and why we used it! Its at last more than one year old!). So the
official stable version is being used now.
- Improved instructions in 'README.md' for building software environment
in a Docker container (while having project source and output data
products on the local system; including the usage of the host's
'/dev/shm' to speed up temporary operations).
- Until now, the convention in Maneage was to put eight SPACE characters
before the comment lines within recipes. This was done because by
default GNU Emacs (also many other editors) show a TAB as eight
characters. However, in other text editors, online browsers, or even
the Git diff, a TAB can correspond to a different number of
characters. In such cases, the Maneage recipes wouldn't look too
interesting (the comments and the recipe commands would show a
different indentation!).
With this commit, all the comment lines in the Makefiles within the
core Maneage branch have a hash ('#') as their first character and a
TAB as the second. This allows the comment lines in recipes to have the
same indentation as code; making the code much more easier to read in a
general scenario including a 'git diff' (editor agnostic!).
P.S. List of updated software with their old and new versions
- Software with no version update are not mentioned.
- The old version of newly added software are shown with '--'.
Name (Basic) Old version New version
------------ ----------- -----------
Bzip2 1.0.6 1.0.8
CURL 7.71.1 7.79.1
Dash 0.5.10.2 0.5.11.5
File 5.39 5.41
Flock 0.2.3 0.4.0
GNU Bash 5.0.18 5.1.8
GNU Binutils 2.35 2.37
GNU Coreutils 8.32 9.0
GNU GCC 10.2.0 11.2.0
GNU M4 1.4.18 1.4.19
GNU Readline 8.0 8.1.1
GNU Tar 1.32 1.34
GNU Texinfo 6.7 6.8
GNU diffutils 3.7 3.8
GNU findutils 4.7.0 4.8.0
GNU gmp 6.2.0 6.2.1
GNU grep 3.4 3.7
GNU gzip 1.10 1.11
GNU libunistring 0.9.10 1.0
GNU mpc 1.1.0 1.2.1
GNU mpfr 4.0.2 4.1.0
GNU nano 5.2 6.0
GNU ncurses 6.2 6.3
GNU wget 1.20.3 1.21.2
Git 2.28.0 2.34.0
Less 563 590
Libxml2 2.9.9 2.9.12
Lzip 1.22-rc2 1.22
OpenSLL 1.1.1a 3.0.0
Patchelf 0.10 0.13
Perl 5.32.0 5.34.0
Podlators -- 4.14
Name (Highlevel) Old version New version
---------------- ----------- -----------
Apachelog4cxx 0.10.0-603 0.12.1
Astrometry.net 0.80 0.85
Boost 1.73.0 1.77.0
CFITSIO 3.48 4.0.0
Cmake 3.18.1 3.21.4
Eigen 3.3.7 3.4.0
Expat 2.2.9 2.4.1
FFTW 3.3.8 3.3.10
Flex 2.6.4-91 2.6.4
Fontconfig 2.13.1 2.13.94
Freetype 2.10.2 2.11.0
GNU Astronomy Utilities 0.12 0.16.1-e0f1
GNU Autoconf 2.69.200-babc 2.71
GNU Automake 1.16.2 1.16.5
GNU Bison 3.7 3.8.2
GNU Emacs 27.1 27.2
GNU GDB 9.2 11.1
GNU GSL 2.6 2.7
GNU Help2man 1.47.11 1.48.5
Ghostscript 9.52 9.55.0
ICU -- 70.1
ImageMagick 7.0.8-67 7.1.0-13
Libbsd 0.10.0 0.11.3
Libffi 3.2.1 3.4.2
Libgit2 1.0.1 1.3.0
Libidn 1.36 1.38
Libjpeg 9b 9d
Libmd -- 1.0.4
Libtiff 4.0.10 4.3.0
Libx11 1.6.9 1.7.2
Libxt 1.2.0 1.2.1
Netpbm 10.86.99 10.73.38
OpenBLAS 0.3.10 0.3.18
OpenMPI 4.0.4 4.1.1
Pixman 0.38.0 0.40.0
Python 3.8.5 3.10.0
R 4.0.2 4.1.2
SWIG 3.0.12 4.0.2
Util-linux 2.35 2.37.2
Util-macros 1.19.2 1.19.3
Valgrind 3.15.0 3.18.1
WCSLIB 7.3 7.7
Xcb-proto 1.14 1.14.1
Xorgproto 2020.1 2021.5
Name (Python) Old version New version
------------- ----------- -----------
Astropy 4.0 5.0
Beautifulsoup4 4.7.1 4.10.0
Beniget -- 0.4.1
Cffi 1.12.2 1.15.0
Cryptography 2.6.1 36.0.1
Cycler 0.10.0 0.11.0+}
Cython 0.29.21 0.29.24
Esutil 0.6.4 0.6.9
Extension-helpers -- 0.1
Galsim 2.2.1 2.3.3
Gast -- 0.5.3
Jinja2 -- 3.0.3
MPI4py 3.0.3 3.1.3
Markupsafe -- 2.0.1
Numpy 1.19.1 1.21.3
Packaging -- 21.3
Pillow -- 8.4.0
Ply -- 3.11
Pyerfa -- 2.0.0.1
Pyparsing 2.3.1 3.0.4
Pythran -- 0.11.0
Scipy 1.5.2 1.7.3
Setuptools 41.6.0 58.3.0
Six 1.12.0 1.16.0
Uncertainties 3.1.2 3.1.6
Wheel -- 0.37.0
Name (R) Old version New version
-------- ----------- -----------
Cli -- 2.5.0
Colorspace -- 2.0-1
Cowplot -- 1.1.1
Crayon -- 1.4.1
Digest -- 0.6.27
Ellipsis -- 0.3.2
Fansi -- 0.5.0
Farver -- 2.1.0
Ggplot2 -- 3.3.4
Glue -- 1.4.2
GridExtra -- 2.3
Gtable -- 0.3.0
Isoband -- 0.2.4
Labeling -- 0.4.2
Lifecycle -- 1.0.0
Magrittr -- 2.0.1
MASS -- 7.3-54
Mgcv -- 1.8-36
Munsell -- 0.5.0
Pillar -- 1.6.1
R-Pkgconfig -- 2.0.3
R6 -- 2.5.0
RColorBrewer -- 1.1-2
Rlang -- 0.4.11
Scales -- 1.1.1
Tibble -- 3.1.2
Utf8 -- 1.2.1
Vctrs -- 0.3.8
ViridisLite -- 0.4.0
Withr -- 2.4.2
|
|
Some minor conflicts (all expected from the commit messages in the Maneage
branch) occurred but were easily fixed.
|
|
Until now, important LaTeX packages like 'caption' (for managing figure
captions), 'hyperref' (for managing links) and 'xcolor' (for managing
colors) were being loaded inside the optional
'tex/src/preamble-maneagge-defualt-style.tex' file. We recommend to remove
this file from loading when you use custom journal sytels. However, these
packages will often be necessary after loading special journal styles also.
With this commit, these packages are now loaded into LaTeX as part of the
'tex/src/preamble-project.tex' file. This file is in charge of LaTeX
settings that are custom to the project and independent of its style.
Several other small corrections are made with this commit:
- I noticed that './project make texclean' crashes if no PDF exists in the
working directory! So a '-f' was added to the 'rm' command of the
'texclean' rule.
- As part of the LaTeX Hyperref, we can set general metadata or properties
for the PDF (that aren't written into the printable PDF, but into the
file metadata). They can be viewed in many PDF viewers as PDF
properties. Until now, we were only using the '\projecttitle' macro here
to write the paper's title. However, thanks to the recently added
'reproduce/analysis/config/metadata.conf', we now have a lot of useful
information that can also go here. So the 'metadata-copyright-owner' is
now used to define the PDF author, and the project's
'metadata-git-repository' and commit hash are written into the PDF
subject. But to import these, it was necessary to define them as LaTeX
macros, hence the addition of these macros in 'initialize.mk'.
- Some extra packages that aren't necessary to build the default PDF were
removed in 'preamble-project.tex'.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
This commit makes the numbered links to references such as [13]
[14] [15] in the appendices clickable in the pdf. The solution
was to call the "\newcites" command from the "multilibs" package
*after* loading "hyperref".
First do "rm -fv .build/tex/build/*.bbl .build/tex/build/*.aux"
and then "./project make" a few times.
|
|
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).
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
To help show the simplicity of 'top-make.mk', it was included as a
listing. I also went over some of Boud's corrections and made small
edits. In particular:
- The '\label' and '\ref' to a section were removed. I done this after
inspecting some of their recent papers and noticing that they generally
have a simple flow, without such redirections.
- In the part about the RDA adoption grant, I moved the "from the
researcher perspective" to the end. Because Austin+2017 is mainly
focused on data-center management, not the researcher's. They do touch
upon researcher solutions that can help data-base managers, but not
directly the researchers. In effect with this grant, they acknowledged
that our researcher-focused solution confirms with their criteria for
data-base management.
|
|
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.
|
