Closed larsoner closed 3 years ago
I'm not much involved here but I like it :)
I don't fully oversee which complications it might cause, but agree with @larsoner and I like mne-bids-pipeline!
+1 from me
such a consensus on an MNE issue ❤
I'll probably carry out the rename on Friday unless anyone objects in the meantime!
MNE BIDS Pipeline is good. Should we move the repo to mne-tools/bids-pipeline?
Otherwise it might appear as an "MNE-BIDS Pipeline" (mind the hyphen), but that's sorta misleading...
Keep mne
I would call the repo mne-bids-pipeline
, package mne_bids_pipeline
, and write about it in docs as MNE-BIDS-Pipeline
or MNE BIDS Pipeline
. My preference is to have all hyphenated because it's most consistent with MNE-Python
Ok!
Clarification:
I'm ok with your proposal:
I would call the repo
mne-bids-pipeline
, packagemne_bids_pipeline
, and write about it in docs asMNE-BIDS-Pipeline
I'm only slightly concerned that "MNE-BIDS-Pipeline" is rather longish … can we find a more concise or jazzy term than "pipeline"?
How about …
MNE-BIDS-Plumber
MNE-Plumber
because, you know … pipeline … pipes … plumber?
Voilà !
Logo & copyright infringement lawsuit right there!
MNE-Pypes :smile:
I still prefer MNE-BIDS-Pipeline
but could live with shortening it to MNE-Pipeline
or so. I enjoy the more creative/clever names that avoid the word "pipeline" but so far don't prefer them because they hurt discoverability / make people have to think harder or read more about what the package actually does to know.
I think pipeline is a misnomer, no? Isn't this supposed to be a template that is copied in each study and edited or extended according to the particular needs of the study?
A pipeline would something that you use like a library.
MNE-BIDS-template
, MNE-pipline-maker
, MNE-BIDS-maker
, MNE-BIDS-assistant
...
I think pipeline is a misnomer, no?
I think it makes sense to call it a pipeline because it manages and performs several sequential preprocessing steps.
Isn't this supposed to be a template that is copied in each study and edited or extended according to the particular needs of the study?
In principle yes, but over the course of the past year we've moved more and more in the direction of a package-like thing as complexity grew.
I'll give my okay for MNE-BIDS-Pipeline
:)
In principle yes, but over the course of the past year we've moved more and more in the direction of a package-like thing as complexity grew.
I'll give my okay for MNE-BIDS-Pipeline :)
+1
I agree the code is now written and thought so that people will not just clone, modify locally and keep changes locally. We are moving towards a community consolidated pipeline
@larsoner while you're breaking things anyway 😜 feel free to also rename the master
branch to main
if you want! We wanted to do that anyway
I just had to fetch 500 MB to update my repo, which is not great. I think the gh-pages
branch should be moved to another dedicated repo and deleted from here. @hoechenberger do you want to take care of that part? Maybe a new mne-bids-pipeline-gh-pages
or something?
I would stick to gh-pages but in this repo but I would squash commits regularly. It's the simplest thing to do
How come we're not running into this issue with MNE..?
I would stick to gh-pages but in this repo but I would squash commits
Should I start just by squashing all to a single commit now?
How come we're not running into this issue with MNE..?
We use a separate repo for MNE-Python
Should I start just by squashing all to a single commit now?
+1
How come we're not running into this issue with MNE..?
We use a separate repo for MNE-Python
yes but it's the URL of the org and it has a domain name.
if you don't use gh-pages maybe it could become
mne-bids-pipeline.mne.tools
but I prefer that we stick to:
mne.tools/mne-bids-pipeline
I would stick to gh-pages but in this repo but I would squash commits
Should I start just by squashing all to a single commit now?
We are using a gh-pages branch in mne-bids too (235 commits by now) --> https://github.com/mne-tools/mne-bids/tree/gh-pages
so should we "squash" that too?
I don't really get though why that would reduce the download size. Is the previous history of commits lost during squashing?
Is this something like git rebase -i
, using squash
for all but one of the commits? Would you mind posting your commands @larsoner, please ? :-)
it's to avoid having to download all the web site versions when you git clone the origin repo
I don't really get though why that would reduce the download size. Is the previous history of commits lost during squashing?
Yes squashing (and then push-force, which is what I did with this repo) loses the commit history. In MNE-Python mne-tools.github.io
nowadays we do one huge squash at each release to keep repo size down while still maintaining some amount of history.
Is this something like git rebase -i, using squash for all but one of the commits? Would you mind posting your commands @larsoner, please ? :-)
It was something like:
$ git fetch upstream
$ git checkout -b gh-pages upstream/gh-pages
$ git shortlog | wc -l
181
$ git rebase -i HEAD~181
... # do :%s/pick/squash/g in vim, then change the topmost one back to pick
thanks a lot, makes sense!
I think we should rename
mne-study-template
tomne-bids-pipeline
.The "study template" name gives the wrong impression. When describing it to people I have to tell them it's a misnomer. I think from the implementation end we can make a redirect for mne.tools/mne-study-template and GitHub will automatically redirect when a repo gets renamed, so it's mostly a question of how many existing users we will annoy versus the benefits we will get from (I think much) better visibility from a more appropriate name. It seems worth it to me.
If people agree that renaming is worthwhile, does
mne-bids-pipeline
seem like a good choice? It seems most appropriate given the current tagline for the name is:So
mne-bids-pipeline
to me captures the two essential components: being a pipeline, and working with BIDS data.From offline discussion with @agramfort and @hoechenberger they're on board with a name change already. So people feel free to comment on
mne-bids-pipeline
specifically and/or give alternatives, or speak up if you're opposed to this move overall!