| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
In the previous commit, the modified abstract of the acknowledgments only
included the URL of Maneage, but its more formal to cite the Maneage paper,
the URL is already present in the paper.
|
|
Until now, the data-lineage figure's step-by-step feature (using the macros
defined at the top) didn't correspond to the new format! It was still based
on the purely-hypothetical format, while the boxes and their contents had
changed.
With this commit, they macros and corresponding parts that they create have
been updated to represent the step-by-step data lineage of this paper.
Also, in the "tools-per-year" plot, the green line was brought ontop of the
histogram to be more clear (especially when transparency isn't implemented
properly in the conversion).
|
|
Until now the color for the branching figure'e "project" branch was too
close to the Derved project branch. With this commit, I am using a slightly
darker shade of brown that is sufficiently differnet from the core Maneage
branch and the derived project branch.
|
|
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.
|
|
The default 'paper.tex' starts by defining some macros and comments
describing them. Until now, the text was not too clear and could be
confusing for someone that is not at all familiar with Maneage.
With this commit, the comments have been edited to be more clear for a
first-time reader. For example they all start with FULL CAPS
summaries.
Two other small things were corrected in 'tex/src/preamble-necessary.tex':
- Until now 'project.tex' was included in this preamble. However, because
of its importance in Maneage, and prominent place in the demonstration
plot of the paper introducing Maneage, it is now included directly in
'paper.tex'. This also allows users to safely ignore/delete this
preamble file if their LaTeX style is different.
- I noticed that some macros for some astronomical software names from the
very first commits in Maneage were still present here! They are no
longer used, so they have been removed.
|
|
Until now, we were using three EPS (created from SVG) that were downloaded
from https://www.flaticon.com. Therefore it was necessary to acknowledge
the creators and put a link to the webpage. This consumed space in the
caption and decreased the originality of the plot.
Another problem was that the "collaboration" icon (with three people in it)
had arrows, and some of those arrows pointed downwards, make ambiguity in
relation to the top-ward arrows under the commits.
With this commit, three alternative icons are added that I made from
scratch, using Inkscape. The collaboration icon now is two figures and two
speech-bubbles, without any arrows.
|
|
The text of the default paper hadn't been changed for a very long time! In
this time, three papers using Maneage have been published (which can be
very good as an example), Maneage also now has a webpage!
With these commit these examples and the webpage have been added and
generally it was also polished a little to hopefully be more useful.
|
|
The git history of the project is now archived on SoftwareHeritage and a
link to it as was added in the "Reproducible supplement" tag just under the
abstract.
Also, some corrections were also made in the text. In particular, the part
explaining the separation of software and data reproducibility was slightly
clarified to be more clear
|
|
Possible semantic conflicts (that may not show up as Git conflicts but may
cause a crash in your project after the merge):
1) The project title (and other basic metadata) should be set in
'reproduce/analysis/conf/metadata.conf'. Please include this file in
your merge (if it is ignored because of '.gitattributes'!).
2) Consider importing the changes in 'initialize.mk' and 'verify.mk' (if
you have added all analysis Makefiles to the '.gitattributes' file
(thus not merging any change in them with your branch). For example
with this command:
git diff master...maneage -- reproduce/analysis/make/initialize.mk
3) The old 'verify-txt-no-comments-leading-space' function has been
replaced by 'verify-txt-no-comments-no-space'. The new function will
also remove all white-space characters between the columns (not just
white space characters at the start of the line). Thus the resulting
check won't involve spacing between columns.
A common set of steps are always necessary to prepare a project for
publication. Until now, we would simply look at previous submissions and
try to follow them, but that was prone to errors and could cause
confusion. The internal infrastructure also didn't have some useful
features to make good publication possible. Now that the submission of a
paper fully devoted to the founding criteria of Maneage is complete
(arXiv:2006.03018), it was time to formalize the necessary steps for easier
submission of a project using Maneage and implement some low-level features
that can make things easier.
With this commit a first draft of the publication checklist has been added
to 'README-hacking.md', it was tested in the submission of arXiv:2006.03018
and zenodo.3872248. To help guide users on implementing the good practices
for output datasets, the outputs of the default project shown in the paper
now use the new features). After reading the checklist, please inspect
these.
Some other relevant changes in this commit:
- The publication involves a copy of the necessary software
tarballs. Hence a new target ('dist-software') was also added to
package all the project's software tarballs in one tarball for easy
distribution.
- A new 'dist-lzip' target has been defined for those who want to
distribute an Lzip-compressed tarball.
- The '\includetikz' LaTeX macro now has a second argument to allow
configuring the '\includegraphics' call when the plot should not be
built, but just imported.
|
|
Until now, when the figures were built directly from EPS
('\newcommand{\makepdf}{}' was commented), they would take the full
line-width becoming a little too large! I noticed this after letting arXiv
build the PDF.
With this commit, the 'includetikz' tool takes a second argument to be a
parameter given to 'includegraphics' (which is scale in this case).
|
|
All the steps following the to-be-added (in 'README-hacking.md')
publication checklist prior to the final check from new clone have been
added:
- 'README.md' file has been set.
- "Reproducible supplement" was added just above the keywords, pointing to
Zenodo.
- A link to the to-be-uploaded data underlying the plot was added in the
caption of the tools-per-year plot.
- A new meta-data configuration file was added to store basic project
metadata to be used throughout the project. This will later be taken
into Maneage. For examle the project title is now stored here and
written into the paper's LaTeX source and output datasets automatically.
- Verification was activated and plot's data and LaTeX macro files are now
automatically verified.
- A complete metadata was added for the data underlying the plot.
- A generic function was added in 'initialize.mk' that will automatically
write project info and copyright in all plain-text outputs.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
In order to correspond to the updated datalineage plot, the name of the
plotted columns was changed to 'columns.txt', but I had forgot to update it
in the LaTeX source and since the old file still remained I hadn't
noticed. This was found by Boud and corrected.
|
|
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.
|
|
David suggested some interesting references in particular about the
problems with Juypyter notebooks that are now added to the long version of
the paper. We'll later decide if/how they can be used.
|
|
[Compared to first submission to DSJ last week with 11436 words in raw PDF,
we have decreased the paper by ~1000 words to 10493 :-)]
As with the previous commits, the moment Boud changed the structure of
sentences, I was able to find the redundancies and remove them! This is a
fascinating feature of collaboration I had never felt before: it is so hard
to find redundancies in my own raw text, but even a minor correction by
someone else suddeny breaks my mental memories/barrier on the sentence,
allowing me to be more critical to it!
Anyway, besides such corrections, I fixed a few other things: 1) In the
DSJ's recently published papers, ther is no `~' between "Figure" and its
number. 2) I noticed that in `tex/src/figure-src-inputconf.tex' I was
actually using manually input strings for the filename, checksum and size!
This was contrary to the whole philosophy of Maneage(!), I must have rushed
and forgot! So LaTeX variables are now defined and used.
|
|
Reduction by about 7 words.
I added "internet security" as an extra reason for having all the
downloads in a single file. Modularity and minimal complexity in
themselves generally contribute to internet security, but in this
case, it's obvious that having all the communication with the
outside world managed through a single file makes internet security
management much simpler.
I replaced the "fake URL" by the real one, because at least in the
present format, the URL fits in nicely. So both `paper.tex` and
`tex/src/figure-src-inputconf.tex` are modified in this commit.
|
|
Today Konrad made the following suggestions after reading through the paper
(created from Commit 1ac5c12). Thanks a lot Konrad ;-). I tried to address
them all in this commit. Afterwards, while looking over the corrected
parts, some minor edits came up to me to remove redundant parts and add
extra points where it helps.
In particular to be able to print the International Phonetic Alphabet
(IPA), I had to include the LaTeX `TIPA' package, but it was interesting to
see that it was already available in the project as a dependency of another
package we loaded.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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).
|
|
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.
|
|
We just recently recognied that the final paper should not be longer than
8000 words. The easiest way was just to start a new `paper.tex' and bring
in parts from the original/long version. We can use all the hard work that
went into writing the long paper later (possibly in a manual for
Maneage). So I don't want to suddenly distroy its history at this point.
To let Git know about renaming the original `paper.tex' to
`tex/src/paper-long.tex', I am making this commit. This commit doesn't have
any `paper.tex' and only records the fact that it has been renamed. In the
next commit, I'll re-create `paper.tex' which will host the short/final
version. But thanks to this commit, if we later make any changes to long
version, Git will know that it was originally the main `paper.tex'.
|
|
I hadn't updated the abstract since first writing it. With this commit, it
has been updated to be more precise and generically interesting, focusing
more on the principles and usability. I also greatly improved the section
on publishing the workflow.
|
|
The subdirectories here (and the fact that they may be symbolic links) may
be confusing for some early project users, so a `README.md' file was added
there describing them and when they are links, when directories and when
some may not yet exist.
|
|
The figure was greatly improved, becoming much more clear and descriptive
of some of the main advantages of having version control in a complete
project like Maneage.
|
|
With the main structure of Maneage explained, I have started to explain how
a new project is created, along with a schematic diagram that shows two
scenarios of how Git can help with project management.
|
|
Until now, the introduction had repeated several things and also had a
relatively long list of things to add in its end. Also, it was highly
focused to scientific papers.
With this commit, I effectively re-wrote it, with the starting paragraphs
becoming more industry-friendly, while also focusing on the scientific
cases. Many of the repetative parts were removed and the listed items in
the end were put into the text in a much better context.
Also, now that the name of the system involves "lineage" (and a lot of
focus is put on it in the start) the terms data provenance and lineage were
defined in the definition section.
Some other intersting points that I encountered during the research on
definitions were added to the discussion and final lists, and the DOI of
one reference paper was corrected.
|
|
With this commit a description of these two important parts have been added
to the project, along with several figures showing various parts of the
files that are discussed. I also done some other restructuring of the
figures and files to make things fit better into the the description of the
paper.
|
|
Until now, I was mistakenly multiplying the fraction of papers in that
journal. This is corrected with this commit.
|
|
In order to make the description more clear and readable, the rules in the
demonstrated Makefile (and their links to the data lineage plot) were made
more clear.
|
|
Until now, there was no explanation on an actual analysis phase, therefore
with this commit an example scenario with a readable Makefile is included.
The Data lineage graph was also simplified to both be more readable, and
also to correspond to this new explanation and subMakefile.
Some random edits/typos were also corrected and some references added for
discussion.
|
|
The main problems with this dataset was the names of the journals (which
sometimes have single quotes or apostrophes in them that is really annoying
for SED)! But ultimately, for the simple study we want to do here, the
journal names are irrelevant, so in the end I just ignored the names. Later
we can set an identifier for the journals if necessary.
But now we have the basic information in a way that is usable in a plot to
show in this paper.
|
|
The text was slightly improved/edited and I also recently came up to the
Menke et al. 2020 (DOI:10.1101/2020.01.15.908111) which also has some good
datasets we can use as a demonstration here.
|
|
While reading over the already written parts (and hopefully complete the
paper), they were edited/corrected to be more clear.
|
|
Some edits were made after rereading of some parts.
|
|
With this commit, the general outline of the analysis phase is given, as
well as a description of the LaTeX macros and their relation to the paper
and thier verification.
Also, the data-lineage figure was updated to have references.tex also and
some resizing of the folders in file-architecture to be more clear.
|
|
In the last few days I have been writing these two sections in the middle
of other work. But I am making this commit because it has already become a
lot! I am now going onto the description of `./project make'.
|
|
Until now the file architecture plot at the directories ontop of the
top-level files. This made it hard to visually identify the top-level
files. They are not placed ontop of the sub-directories and some space is
added to highlight the files in the top-level directory and those in the
subdirectories.
Two other changes were made:
- The symbolic links created in the top source directory are also shown.
- The coding of this figure was made much more elegant by defining a
PGFPlots node class and just changing the things that are direrent
between each directory.
|
|
It was a little hard to describe the file structure so instead of using a
standard listing as most papers do, I thought of showing the file and
directory structure as boxes within each other (modeled on the Gnome
disk-utility).
Some other polishing was done throughout the paper also.
|
|
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.
|
|
The unnecessary parts were removed and the project now runs.
|
|
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.
|
