Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[REVIEW]: Launcher: A simple tool for executing high throughput computing workloads #289

Closed
17 tasks done
whedon opened this issue Jun 8, 2017 · 31 comments
Closed
17 tasks done

[REVIEW]: Launcher: A simple tool for executing high throughput computing workloads #289

whedon opened this issue Jun 8, 2017 · 31 comments
Labels
accepted published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link

whedon commented Jun 8, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Submitting author: @lwilson (Lucas Wilson)
Repository: https://github.com/TACC/launcher
Version: v3.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @kc9qey
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.841337

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7b5df63cd8a40f557d66051695d300a7"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7b5df63cd8a40f557d66051695d300a7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7b5df63cd8a40f557d66051695d300a7/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7b5df63cd8a40f557d66051695d300a7)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer questions

Conflict of interest

  • As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (such as being a major contributor to the software).

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v3.1)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lwilson) made major contributions to the software?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: Have any performance claims of the software been confirmed?

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g. API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g. papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon whedon added the review label Jun 8, 2017
@whedon whedon mentioned this issue Jun 8, 2017
Closed
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jun 8, 2017

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS. @kc9qey it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As as reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all JOSS reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

@danielskatz
Copy link

@kc9qey - this is ready for you to review. You should review the reviewer instructions on http://joss.theoj.org/about. Let me know if you have any problems.

@kc9qey
Copy link

kc9qey commented Jun 8, 2017 

TACC/launcher Functionality documentation needed.
#21 opened a minute ago by kc9qey
TACC/launcher Along with example usage, missing automated test(s).
#20 opened 2 minutes ago by kc9qey
TACC/launcher missing example usage
#19 opened 3 minutes ago by kc9qey
TACC/launcher pre-requisite needs mentioned
#18 opened 5 minutes ago by kc9qey

@danielskatz
Copy link

just adding links to make it easier to follow the previous comment:

TACC/launcher Functionality documentation needed.
TACC/launcher#21 opened a minute ago by kc9qey
TACC/launcher Along with example usage, missing automated test(s).
TACC/launcher#20 opened 2 minutes ago by kc9qey
TACC/launcher missing example usage
TACC/launcher#19 opened 3 minutes ago by kc9qey
TACC/launcher pre-requisite needs mentioned
TACC/launcher#18 opened 5 minutes ago by kc9qey

@danielskatz
Copy link

danielskatz commented Jun 11, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Hi @lwilson - It looks like you've resolved one of the four issues above, but still need to work on the other three. I'm just checking on the status of them, so it's clear who has the ball currently.

@danielskatz
Copy link

Hi @lwilson - just another ping...

@danielskatz
Copy link

@lwilson - the review process is waiting on your resolution of the last 3 issues created by @kc9qey

@danielskatz
Copy link

Hi @lwilson - this is another ping...

@danielskatz
Copy link

I have pinged @lwilson offline

@danielskatz
Copy link

@arfon - it's been over a month since we've heard from the author @lwilson here. Any thoughts?

@lwilson
Copy link

lwilson commented Jul 17, 2017 via email

@danielskatz
Copy link

great!

@danielskatz
Copy link

@lwilson - not sure what "this" week meant... :)

@lwilson
Copy link

lwilson commented Jul 25, 2017

It's apparently a "baker's" week (it has 1 extra day)!

@kc9qey kc9qey closed this as completed Jul 25, 2017
@danielskatz danielskatz reopened this Jul 25, 2017
@lwilson
Copy link

lwilson commented Aug 1, 2017

We have made some updates on:
TACC/launcher#21
TACC/launcher#20
TACC/launcher#19

@danielskatz
Copy link

@kc9qey - back to you...

@danielskatz
Copy link

@kc9qey - just another ping ...

@kc9qey
Copy link

kc9qey commented Aug 7, 2017

all good.

@kc9qey kc9qey closed this as completed Aug 7, 2017
@kc9qey
Copy link

kc9qey commented Aug 7, 2017 via email

@danielskatz danielskatz reopened this Aug 7, 2017
@danielskatz
Copy link

@kc9qey - there are still a couple of boxes in the checklist that are not checked.

@kc9qey
Copy link

kc9qey commented Aug 7, 2017

I didn't see any automated tests, so left unchecked.
Performance claims for me are a "won't do" --also left unchecked.

@danielskatz
Copy link

@kc9qey

If there are no performance claims, you can check that box.

Are you also saying that there are no automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified? If so, then this box cannot be checked, and we need to go back to @lwilson

@kc9qey
Copy link

kc9qey commented Aug 7, 2017

"manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified" , i can take that for the automated tests.

@danielskatz
Copy link

danielskatz commented Aug 7, 2017 •
edited
Loading

@kc9qey - thanks for the review work!

@danielskatz
Copy link

@arfon - I now hand this over to you for final steps

@danielskatz
Copy link

@arfon - ping...

@arfon arfon added the accepted label Aug 10, 2017
@arfon
Copy link
Member

arfon commented Aug 10, 2017

@lwilson - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

@lwilson
Copy link

lwilson commented Aug 10, 2017

10.5281/zenodo.841337

@arfon
Copy link
Member

arfon commented Aug 11, 2017

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.841337 as archive

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 11, 2017

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.841337 is the archive.

@arfon
Copy link
Member

arfon commented Aug 11, 2017

@kc9qey many thanks for your review and thanks to @danielskatz for editing this submission ✨

@lwilson - your paper is now accepted into JOSS. Your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00289 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

@arfon arfon closed this as completed Aug 11, 2017
@whedon whedon added published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. labels Mar 2, 2020
@editorialbot editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 2, 2023
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
accepted published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@arfon @lwilson @danielskatz @kc9qey @whedon