search

lorenzwalthert / touchstone

Smart benchmarking of pull requests with statistical confidence
https://lorenzwalthert.github.io/touchstone
Other
53 stars 7 forks source link

Contribute to ropensci #93

Open lorenzwalthert opened 2 years ago

lorenzwalthert commented 2 years ago

@assignUser what do you think of this? Any experience? I don’t have, but I think it would fit in.

assignUser commented 2 years ago

I have published in JOSS which uses the same peer review process as ropensci, overall a good experience!

As I see it {touchstone} is within scope of rOpensci as 'workflow automation',if you are fine with moving the repo under their organization I would say let's go for it :) :rocket:

lorenzwalthert commented 2 years ago

Ok. What would be the next steps? We can also ask Maelle, I interacted with her before.

assignUser commented 2 years ago

I think we are both happy with the current API right? So we need to implement a few minor changes (stable lifecycle, codemeta etc.) and then we can start the submission process. (for reference)

assignUser commented 2 years ago

dealing with #88 #89 might also be good to do before submission

lorenzwalthert commented 2 years ago

I agree on the two referenced issues.

lorenzwalthert commented 2 years ago

Also, reading up on how {gittargets} got contributed to ropensci by someone who maintains already multiple ropensci packages (https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/486), I don't feel like I have the time to go through that anytime soon and factor in feedback extensively. However, I definitively believe that {touchstone} would benefit if it was maintained under the ropensci umbrella (instead of my name), as it is a boost in visibility and credibility.

If you want to contribute it, I'd be more than happy for you to do that and become the main maintainer of the package. If you don't, that's also totally fine for me 😄 . I wrote {touchstone} to solve my own benchmarking problems with {styler}, and that goal is reached, so I am happy. But I anticipate that (as with {styler} and {precommit}), there are always more use cases and bug reports coming in (in particular when more people start using it), so I don't think {touchstone} is anywhere near done now. We can also leave this open, no need to submit it to ropensci in the next 7 days or so.

assignUser commented 2 years ago

I read the full {gittargets} review and agree that it is a bit more involved than I originally thought. Though I do agree that it would help spread the word about {touchstone} and provide other benefits.

After thinking about it for a bit: I would be happy to take the lead on bringing {touchstone} to ropensci and maintaining it as I think {touchstone} can really benefit more than just {styler} and {simstudy}! :laughing:

lorenzwalthert commented 2 years ago

Ok great. Then let’s close the few outstanding issues and you can start tue review process (and maybe read the contributing guidelines before and make adjustments, eg maybe more examples).

assignUser commented 2 years ago

:+1: I ran pkgcheck (the ci error is of course wron), which gives a nice todo:

✔ Package name is available
✖ does not have a 'CITATION' file.
✖ does not have a 'codemeta.json' file.
✖ does not have a 'contributing' file.
✔ uses 'roxygen2'.
✔ 'DESCRIPTION' has a URL field.
✔ 'DESCRIPTION' has a BugReports field.
✔ Package has at least one HTML vignette
✖ These functions do not have examples: [benchmark_analyze, benchmark_ls, benchmark_read, benchmark_run, benchmark_write, branch_get_or_fail, branch_install, path_pinned_asset, pr_comment, touchstone_managers, touchstone_script, use_touchstone].
✖ Package has no continuous integration checks.
✔ Package coverage is 86.8%.
✔ R CMD check found no errors.
✔ R CMD check found no warnings.

ℹ Current status:
✖ This package is not ready to be submitted.