Skip to content

Creates a contributing.md document - #148

Open
jwdebelius wants to merge 17 commits into
biocore:masterfrom
jwdebelius:contributing
Open

Creates a contributing.md document#148
jwdebelius wants to merge 17 commits into
biocore:masterfrom
jwdebelius:contributing

Conversation

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Addresses issue #147. This is a first pass, roughly based on the sckit-bio contributing.md.

There are a few issues which need to be addressed here:

  • Who is the target audience for IPython Notebooks?
  • Format and documentation standards for IPython Notebooks
  • Contribution of analyses outside the lab.
  • Scope of sharing IPython notebooks.

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the links to QIIME and scikit-bio are not present

@wasade

wasade commented Oct 26, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

credits and license section, and below, still don't render right. suggest checking out how github renders:

https://github.com/JWDebelius/American-Gut/blob/contributing/CONTRIBUTING.md

@jwdebelius jwdebelius changed the title Creates a contributing.md document Creates a contributing.md document (WIP) Oct 26, 2015
@jwdebelius jwdebelius changed the title Creates a contributing.md document (WIP) Creates a contributing.md document Oct 26, 2015
@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@wasade @EmbrietteH: I think I have the formatting issues fixed.

@wasade

wasade commented Oct 29, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Previously for references we just used hyperlinks... why the change?

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

A more complete citation lets you know what you're looking at. Also, if you're linking out to a webpage that has since been take down, the description makes it easier to find that information

@wasade

wasade commented Oct 29, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Right, but we've previously been linking to the Pubmed PMID which is
presumably stable

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:11 PM, J W Debelius notifications@github.com
wrote:

A more complete citation lets you know what you're looking at. Also, if
you're linking out to a webpage that has since been take down, the
description makes it easier to find that information


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#148 (comment).

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

For me, the first issue is the bigger one. I tend to get frustrated with the inline link-style citations following sentences, but typically read through numbered citations unless I want to follow up. Numbers also mean that I know you're referencing the same thing multiple times. But, ultimately, it's a stylistic question.
I'm happy to support whichever in the group consensus, though.

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think about adding an external link to Jupyter Notebook?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can, but that was actually a reference to the discussion section about Jupyter notebooks, below...

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just saw that :S

Ok. No biggie. No strong preferences for adding another link.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:27 AM, J W Debelius notifications@github.com
wrote:

In CONTRIBUTING.md
#148 (comment):

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+# Contributing to American Gut
+
+The American Gut Project is the largest a crowd-funded science project looking to map the topology of the human superorganisms. One of the goals of the American Gut Project is transparency about data processing and technique development. You can find source code used in American Gut analyses under public revision in the American Gut Repository on Github.
+
+This document covers what you should do to get started contributing to American Gut. You should read this whole document before you consider submitting code to American Gut. This will save time for both you and the American Gut developers.
+
+## Types of Submissions
+We are looking for submission of new analyses (although it may be a good idea to discuss your analysis with the development team before submitting your pull request), bug fixes, documentation updates, additions, and fixes.
+
+When considering submitting a new analysis to American Gut, you should begin by posting an issue on the American Gut Issue Tracker. The information which needs to be included in this post will differ based on the type of contribution. Your contribution will also need to be tested (discussed below).
+
+* For new features, describe why the functionality being proposed is relevant. The functionality must be demonstrated as relevant to other users, or other analyses. If appropriate, you may be encouraged to push the functionality to other biocore packages, such as QIIME or scikit-bio.
+
+* For new analyses, you’ll want to describe the new approach. Explain why you have selected this approach, citing as necessary. Your analysis should be presented as an Jupyter Notebook (see below).

I can, but that was actually a reference to the discussion section about
Jupyter notebooks, below...


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/biocore/American-Gut/pull/148/files#r44953726.

@mortonjt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

One potential problem with Pubmed IDs is not all publications have Pubmed IDs. Not sure if this will be an issue here ...

Having complete citations seems appropriate - no strong preferences here.

What needs to be done to get this merged?

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The PMID thing isn't necessarily an issue, if we use citations.

At this point, there needs to be a concensus on the citation style. Perhaps, @EmbrietteH has a suggestion?

Alternatively, if @wasade agrees, we could use citations moving forward, and include a note that historic notebooks do not necessarily adhere to these standards?

@wasade

wasade commented Nov 16, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

My concern is that if the contributing requirements are too ridged, either
people won't contribute or they'll disregard the requirements
On Nov 16, 2015 11:29 AM, "J W Debelius" notifications@github.com wrote:

The PMID thing isn't necessarily an issue, if we use citations.

At this point, there needs to be a concensus on the citation style.
Perhaps, @EmbrietteH https://github.com/EmbrietteH has a suggestion?

Alternatively, if @wasade https://github.com/wasade agrees, we could
use citations moving forward, and include a note that historic notebooks do
not necessarily adhere to these standards?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#148 (comment).

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I'd rather have the standards, and not have people adhere to the letter than leave ambiguity.
I don't expect people to adhere 100%, but I think setting the expectation of a narrative structure, logical flow, and adequate citations are critical.

@EmbrietteH

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What about doi? Even if there is no PMID, everything has a doi....

Sent from my HTC on T-Mobile 4G LTE

----- Reply message -----
From: "J W Debelius" notifications@github.com
To: "biocore/American-Gut" American-Gut@noreply.github.com
Cc: "Embriette Hyde" embriette.rose@gmail.com
Subject: [American-Gut] Creates a contributing.md document (#148)
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 9:29 AM

The PMID thing isn't necessarily an issue, if we use citations.

At this point, there needs to be a concensus on the citation style. Perhaps, @EmbrietteH has a suggestion?

Alternatively, if @wasade agrees, we could use citations moving forward, and include a note that historic notebooks do not necessarily adhere to these standards?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#148 (comment)

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

That was part of a discussion about link stability. I was advocating for a
full citation, because then you can reference the same thing multiple
times, have a title and author, etc. I find it more readable, and easier to
track down what I need when a citation including authors, title, year and
publication are provided. The model included a link to the actual document.

Daniel was arguing for links in the text, and that because most of what was
being cited had a PMID, and therefore the links were stable.

I'm against DOI as a citation mechanism for what is primarily biological
analysis.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:05 AM Embriette Hyde notifications@github.com
wrote:

What about doi? Even if there is no PMID, everything has a doi....

Sent from my HTC on T-Mobile 4G LTE

----- Reply message -----
From: "J W Debelius" notifications@github.com
To: "biocore/American-Gut" American-Gut@noreply.github.com
Cc: "Embriette Hyde" embriette.rose@gmail.com
Subject: [American-Gut] Creates a contributing.md document (#148)
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 9:29 AM

The PMID thing isn't necessarily an issue, if we use citations.

At this point, there needs to be a concensus on the citation style.
Perhaps, @EmbrietteH has a suggestion?

Alternatively, if @wasade agrees, we could use citations moving forward,
and include a note that historic notebooks do not necessarily adhere to
these standards?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#148 (comment)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#148 (comment).

@rob-knight

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PMID and DOI both provide stable links to the original article and will avoid endless additional threads about reference styles and compliance. Suggest using PMID if available, DOI if not (or maybe always DOI with PMID as available?)

On Nov 16, 2015, at 10:23 AM, J W Debelius notifications@github.com wrote:

That was part of a discussion about link stability. I was advocating for a
full citation, because then you can reference the same thing multiple
times, have a title and author, etc. I find it more readable, and easier to
track down what I need when a citation including authors, title, year and
publication are provided. The model included a link to the actual document.

Daniel was arguing for links in the text, and that because most of what was
being cited had a PMID, and therefore the links were stable.

I'm against DOI as a citation mechanism for what is primarily biological
analysis.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:05 AM Embriette Hyde notifications@github.com
wrote:

What about doi? Even if there is no PMID, everything has a doi....

Sent from my HTC on T-Mobile 4G LTE

----- Reply message -----
From: "J W Debelius" notifications@github.com
To: "biocore/American-Gut" American-Gut@noreply.github.com
Cc: "Embriette Hyde" embriette.rose@gmail.com
Subject: [American-Gut] Creates a contributing.md document (#148)
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 9:29 AM

The PMID thing isn't necessarily an issue, if we use citations.

At this point, there needs to be a concensus on the citation style.
Perhaps, @EmbrietteH has a suggestion?

Alternatively, if @wasade agrees, we could use citations moving forward,
and include a note that historic notebooks do not necessarily adhere to
these standards?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#148 (comment)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#148 (comment).


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #148 (comment).

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We settled for DOI links correct? May want to update this

@wasade

wasade commented Aug 24, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Can this be merged?

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The document seems to be a moving target. It seems like based on the meeting on Tuesday, we were changing how we wanted to handle things like environments. So, this can be merged, it can be closed and updated with the current best practices...

@wasade

wasade commented Sep 12, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

is it accurate with respect to our own use of the repository though? i think this repo needs a lot of clean up and organization first.

@jwdebelius

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I don't think it's currently accurate. I don't know that it's every been accurate, especially given the primary processing set up.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants