adds citation and manafest files

[alan-stokes]

adds citation and manifest files. start point for further work on creating a doi for the tools

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.002%) to 98.932% when pulling 15ec30f8062d5c55f30e4b001218cbd4b73b33c9 on citation into b0b549ab2decd55fa06369862dcdd4e2f7e3ef8c on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 99.733% when pulling 21d0dfff45b64e4fdf7f02b2707c7b3e80209f69 on citation into 41a72b2c55923c204cfc1e3c5ac9567fce69af62 on master.

[dkfellows]

Question: I can't see any substantive contributions to this repository by @alan-stokes. All (accepted-to-master) contributions appear to be merge commits. Should he be listed as an author?

[andrewgait]

Personally speaking - yes, as by reviewing and doing merge commits he is contributing... ? It's almost analogous to the situation of someone contributing via ideas rather than by actual code.

To put it another way, if there was something wrong with the merge commit, then git blame would blame him, wouldn't it?

[rowleya]

I don't think it would - I think merge commits are excluded. Code review would usually just be considered the equivalent to proof reading, but it depends on if what was changed in response I guess. The main thing to think about is whether the author can understand the code enough to be able to make changes happily, or whether this would currently require them to learn the code significantly... I wouldn't want to be author on a paper that I didn't really understand as I wouldn't want to be asked questions about it!

[alan-stokes]

how about i just remove myself from this repo's citation file. like i said to donal personally. A bit of this is copy and paste, and following contributors on github. Im glad he's chekcing the sanity of it all.

[alan-stokes]

done.