| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
I had mistakenly forgot to include the four displayed M51 images into
the Git repository of these slides. They were being read from a
different directory on my system!
They are now in the `img/' directory and all references to them in the
LaTeX source of the slides has also been corrected.
This issue was raised by Charles Twardy.
Closes #4
|
|
Only the first slide (marking the location of the talk) has changed.
|
|
Everything else is the same, only the time and date in the first slide
are updated.
|
|
Due to a typo (incorrect macro naming), the credits of the "verified"
stamp were not being shown in the slide. This has been corrected.
|
|
The fact that we only displayed the Git checksum before showing it in
the paper could be a little confusing to people not much familiar with
Git. So a commit checksum (taken randomly from the history of these
slides) was added to it.
Also, some minor changes were done here and there.
|
|
A minor editing was made to make the NoiseChisel slide more
clear. Also the Repology information on Gnuastro and Astropy was set
to today.
|
|
I had used two `using's in one sentence. The second is now changed to
`with'.
|
|
The first slide was modified for this talk.
|
|
Just the first page was updated.
|
|
Since later we have Gnuastro on the right, it was set to the same
order here.
|
|
Until now I was only showing the good NoiseChisel results which don't
show the effect of paramter optimization. With this commit, we are
showing the default parameters, the optimized parameters and the deep
image.
|
|
Two images were taken from `repology.org' showing how Gnuastro and
Astropy's builds on different systems differ.
|
|
The slides were updated (most importantly removing references from the
IAU meeting) for a talk in Collibra.
|
|
To make things easier to understand.
|
|
Before the presentation, some minor corrections were made to make the
points more clear.
|
|
To present this talk in the IAU Symposium 355, a slide was added at
the start to show the importance.
|
|
The new-line was manually inserted in the old aspect ratio, but since
moving to the new aspect ratio, it was no longer necessary, so it has
been corrected.
|
|
In the step that we show how the analysis results are written in the
paper, we would suddenly show the audience a shell function without
any context. This wasn't clear to understand. So the order is reset to
what it originally was: first I show the paper and its source, then I
go down onto the script that writes the LaTeX macros.
|
|
After a discussion with Konrad Hinsen, I recognized that its better to
use "Deterministic", rather than "exact", when describing software
reproducibility.
|
|
A link has been added to the summary page, for viewers to be able to
download the slides.
|
|
This seems to be more logical with the flow of the talk (before
getting into publishing, and right after showing integrity).
|
|
A few slides have been added to clarify the definition of
reproducibility and also to show how a paper using Gnuastro needs far
fewer dependencies.
|
|
A sentence in the Git slides was slightly shortened to fit in the
width without breaking into two.
|
|
I saw this quote a while back in Roberto di Cosmo's RDA talk:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/documents/2019-04-03_RDA-WG.handout.pdf
|
|
For EWASS, they recommended a 16:9 aspect ratio. This is becoming the
standard and after some tests, I saw felt that it does indeed show
better on modern monitors while also giving more horizontal space. The
slides are now changed to this aspect ratio and everything was
slightly modified to show nicely in it.
Also, an extra step was added to the Git demonstration steps to show
how progress on the project branch happens independently of progress
on the template.
|
|
After the previous experience of presenting the slides in Ghent, they
are reordered to be more clear and cause less confusion. In
particular, until this commit, I was describing the software build
steps in the end, so the audience mainly forgot about the analysis
steps and thought this template is just something like Docker or a
virtual machine.
With this commit, the steps are described in the same step that occur:
first how the software are built, then how the input data are
downloaded and finally how the software are run on the data and the
values are written into the paper.
|
|
For the introduction I am now using quotes from published papers.
|
|
A graph was added showing how Git branching and history are used to
verfiy the integrity of the result.
|
|
The slides were significantly upgraded to help in making a better
introduction and clearly demonstrating things for the users.
|
|
The word "pipeline" is confusing, so we refer to the blank project as
"template" now.
|
|
It was a long time since the last work on these slides. So the recent
changes (and in particular the installation of software) are now
described and my affiliation is also corrected).
|
|
A Makefile was added to help manage the files and processes in this
repo.
Also, one of the "template" links was pointing to the old reproduction
pipeline repository. This is fixed now.
|
|
The title was updated to be more generic and a link to the template
output has also been added.
|
|
The name of the repository and the various links to it are
`reproducibile-paper', so its better that the slides also have a
similar name.
|
|
The first version of these slides was presented in a talk I gave at
CRAL on the 9th of February (placed at the end of slides on the
science topic I was talking about). Later, I separated them into an
independent set of slides to help facilitate the discussions I was
having and also to upload on my webpage.
As the concept is evolving, I found my self having to make changes to
the slides, so to keep track of the slides and history of the changes,
I thought of making this repository.
|
