[REVIEW]: Windrose - Githubissues

whedon commented 7 years ago

Submitting author: @scls19fr (Sébastien Celles) Repository: https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/ Version: 1.6.5 Editor: @arfon Reviewer: @amoeba Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1406384

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1b3fb0a7777ba65071e4d99b65a8c47d"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1b3fb0a7777ba65071e4d99b65a8c47d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1b3fb0a7777ba65071e4d99b65a8c47d/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1b3fb0a7777ba65071e4d99b65a8c47d)

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

[x] 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

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] 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 (1.6)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@scls19fr) made major contributions to the software?

Functionality

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

Documentation

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

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g. papers, datasets, software)?

whedon commented 7 years ago

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

:star: Important :star:

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:

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

watching

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

arfon commented 7 years ago

Friendly reminder on this review @tacaswell 😁

tacaswell commented 7 years ago

I am the lead developer of a dependency (Matplotlib), but I do not think that is a conflict of interest.
This is licensed under "CeCILL-B FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT" which is labeled at the bottom as v1.0. There is a CeCILL license on the OSI list is "Cea Cnrs Inria Logiciel Libre License, version 2.1 (CECILL-2.1)"
there is not a 'github release' but the version on pypi matches 1.6
this is a fork / continuation of an existing project. The original author is clearly cited and included in the paper, have they been consulted?
are there docs other than the README? If so I could not easily find them.
paper has no references, are any required?

s-celles commented 7 years ago

there is not a 'github release' but the version on pypi matches 1.6

Should we add a tag on GitHub? If that's necessary we can do it.

this is a fork / continuation of an existing project. The original author is clearly cited and included in the paper, have they been consulted?

@LionelR have been consulted see https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/issues/54

are there docs other than the README? If so I could not easily find them.

No other docs than the README

paper has no references, are any required?

I don't really know what should be part of this field (I've never published such paper).

tacaswell commented 7 years ago

Yes, pushing tags that match at least the most recent version is (I think) required. The tags are what are archived, give you a nice single-file source download, and you can use zenodo.org to get a DOI for the tag / release.

s-celles commented 7 years ago

I've just release version 1.6.1 (Zenodo DOI https://zenodo.org/record/836356#.WX2aPdOLRZ0 , tag on GitHub https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/releases/tag/v1.6.1 , upload on PyPi https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=pkg_edit&name=windrose )

My release procedure is defined at https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/issues/59

tacaswell commented 7 years ago

@arfon Who should be consulted about the license issue?

arfon commented 7 years ago

@tacaswell - it seems like the authors are discussing how to resolve this in https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/issues/65 ?

s-celles commented 7 years ago

PyPi doesn't support CeCILL-B license in classifiers for now (see https://github.com/pypa/pypi-legacy/issues/679 ) so as a workaround I commented out License field in classifier but licence is (as previously) correctly set to CeCILL-B thanks to https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/blob/master/setup.py#L35 and https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/blob/master/windrose/version.py#L5 ) It can be seen on https://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=display&name=windrose&version=1.6.2

arfon commented 7 years ago

Hi @scls19fr, quoting from https://github.com/python-windrose/windrose/issues/65#issuecomment-320047090:

If that's an issue for JOSS I will create an other release with dual license.

If possible, I think it might be easier to dual-license this project. We're not in a position to offer legal advice to authors but I would be more comfortable if there was a license file present in the repository that was definitively listed in the OSI approved licenses.

s-celles commented 7 years ago

windrose is now published with dual licensing: CeCILL-B OR BSD-3-Clause

arfon commented 7 years ago

Thanks @scls19fr. @tacaswell - are you nearly done with your review? There are still a fair number of checkboxes unchecked above :-)

tacaswell commented 7 years ago

I am going to be out-of-contact for the next 2 weeks, sorry :disappointed: and have not finished.

arfon commented 7 years ago

Friendly reminder to revisit this when you get a chance @tacaswell :-)