Closed whedon closed 1 year ago
@drvinceknight We have addressed the remaining comments in the software paper
Also, mind me pinging @hagberg, @dschult, @networkx. We are submitting our library, retworkx, to the Journal of Open Source Software. This is the open peer review of our submission.
Before publishing, I wanted to contact you to ask about how you feel about the name of our submission. This came up as one of our reviewer @szhorvat (igraph's maintainer) pointed out an obvious reference from retworkx to NetworkX. Indeed, the name of our library is an homage to your work (Rust + NetworkX).
Would you be comfortable if we published our library under the current title of retworkx? Or would you prefer if we changed the name of our library before publication?
I'll bring it up at the weekly core developers meeting this week to say what people feel about it.
My first impression is that the one letter difference and the letters being r and n (which are so close) make it likely that users will get confused between the two. That is not in either of our best interests. There are many other good possibilities. In light of search engine optimization, you should make it distinctive from that perspective.
rustnet? or maybe something that highlights the type of analysis you focus on for your package?
I'll bring it up at our developer meeting and get back to you soon. Thanks for asking about it!
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5281/zenodo.2583252 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2019.3 is OK
- 10.1145/2663171.2663188 is OK
- 10.1145/2898361 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2004.75 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dam.2018.02.018 is OK
- 10.1017/nws.2016.20 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4066866 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2104.14722 is OK
- 10.1109/tc.2020.3023247 is OK
- 10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@dschult I will wait to hear back from you before proceeding.
networkx dev here -- how do you feel about rustworkx?
@boothby for me obviously not renaming the library would be the best, because trying to manage compatibly and a migration of our existing user base (it's not exactly small either) is a lot of effort. But, yeah if you request we rename the library I was thinking something like rustworkx
or some other name where we can preserve the rx
shortcut to hopefully ease that transition for people.
The NetworkX devs would prefer that your package not be named so close to the name networkx. The names retworkx and networkx are too close for packages that don't try to provide the same API.
Almost all of us also thought retworkx wasn't a very good name. You probably want to make it clear that it is rust. Many also expressed that it would be really cool to have a drop-in Rust version where the API was the same. That way code developed using one package could just be used in the other package by changing the import statement. But we also understand the subtle choices that have to be made when developing a package. And we appreciate the work toward getting a Rust/Python network analysis tool.
Other good possible names:
RustworkX
Rustworks
RustyNets
NetRust
-- something closer to the type of network analysis you are planning to do. Or closer to Qiskit.
QisNet
networkQIS
the list could go on...
I personally like QisNet but a lot depends on your long term vision for the package.
The end result is that we would prefer that you change the name.
The NetworkX devs would prefer that your package not be named so close to the name networkx. The names retworkx and networkx are too close for packages that don't try to provide the same API.
Almost all of us also thought retworkx wasn't a very good name. You probably want to make it clear that it is rust. Many also expressed that it would be really cool to have a drop-in Rust version where the API was the same. That way code developed using one package could just be used in the other package by changing the import statement. But we also understand the subtle choices that have to be made when developing a package. And we appreciate the work toward getting a Rust/Python network analysis tool.
Other good possible names: RustworkX Rustworks RustyNets NetRust -- something closer to the type of network analysis you are planning to do. Or closer to Qiskit. QisNet networkQIS the list could go on...
I personally like QisNet but a lot depends on your long term vision for the package.
The end result is that we would prefer that you change the name.
Thanks for the response, we will keep track of the change of name proposal in https://github.com/Qiskit/retworkx/issues/641.
The rollout of this is more complicated than just changing the name of the paper. There is quite a few users depending on us so as Matthew highlighted.
@boothby for me obviously not renaming the library would be the best, because trying to manage compatibly and a migration of our existing user base (it's not exactly small either) is a lot of effort. But, yeah if you request we rename the library I was thinking something like
rustworkx
or some other name where we can preserve therx
shortcut to hopefully ease that transition for people.
I personally suggest reseaux
for the new package name. It comes from the French réseaux, and literally means "networks". The imports would be import reseaux as rx
which is very close toimport retworkx as rx
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot help
Hello @IvanIsCoding, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
@editorialbot commands
Hello @IvanIsCoding, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
@drvinceknight @arfon We have changed the name of the library to be rustworkx and need to update the title and repository link. "rustworkx: A High-Performance Graph Library for Python" and https://github.com/Qiskit/rustworkx
I did not find the command to change them, can you help us update those? .
@editorialbot set https://github.com/Qiskit/rustworkx as repository
Done! repository is now https://github.com/Qiskit/rustworkx
@arfon @drvinceknight We have officially released the library under the name of rustworkx
.
We have archived the library in Zenodo, can you help set up the archive with editorialbot? https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7158473
👋 @drvinceknight - this seems like it's waiting for you...
@IvanIsCoding - please update the metadata in your zenodo deposit to change the title to match the title of the software paper
@IvanIsCoding - please update the metadata in your zenodo deposit to change the title to match the title of the software paper
We have updated the title, it matches the paper’s title now
Thanks - @drvinceknight should now do a check on this and recommend it be accepted, then I will take over for the last steps.
@IvanIsCoding - @drvinceknight is quite busy now, so I will handle the rest of the process
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7158473 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7158473
@editorialbot set 0.12.0 as version
Done! version is now 0.12.0
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.
ID figU003Adagexample already defined
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5281/zenodo.2583252 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2019.3 is OK
- 10.1145/2663171.2663188 is OK
- 10.1145/2898361 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2004.75 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dam.2018.02.018 is OK
- 10.1017/nws.2016.20 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4066866 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1811.04968 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2104.14722 is OK
- 10.1109/tc.2020.3023247 is OK
- 10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@IvanIsCoding in your paper.md file, you have 2 figures that use the same label (\label{fig:dagexample}
) - please change one of them to something different
@IvanIsCoding in your paper.md file, you have 2 figures that use the same label (
\label{fig:dagexample}
) - please change one of them to something different
I have updated the label, it should work now
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5281/zenodo.2583252 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2019.3 is OK
- 10.1145/2663171.2663188 is OK
- 10.1145/2898361 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2004.75 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dam.2018.02.018 is OK
- 10.1017/nws.2016.20 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4066866 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1811.04968 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2104.14722 is OK
- 10.1109/tc.2020.3023247 is OK
- 10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article
If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3659, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
Sorry all, I now realize I may have jumped the gun slightly, as I'm not sure that the reviewers are fully satisfied with publication, based on the checklists and my review of the full issue here, so I will ask next before we proceed.
👋 @szhorvat, @inakleinbottle - can you confirm that you are ready for this submission to be accepted and published?
Confirmed.
👋 @inakleinbottle - can you confirm that you are ready for this submission to be accepted and published?
@danielskatz Sorry for the delay. Yes, all of my concerns have been addressed. I still cannot tick the boxes in the review post which is why they are not filled in.
👋 @IvanIsCoding - I've now proofread the paper, and have made suggestions for small changes in https://github.com/Qiskit/rustworkx/pull/720 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can finish the process
@editorialbot recommend-accept
final check before publishing...
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5281/zenodo.2583252 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2019.3 is OK
- 10.1145/2663171.2663188 is OK
- 10.1145/2898361 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2004.75 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dam.2018.02.018 is OK
- 10.1017/nws.2016.20 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4066866 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1811.04968 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2104.14722 is OK
- 10.1109/tc.2020.3023247 is OK
- 10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@IvanIsCoding<!--end-author-handle-- (Ivan Carvalho) Repository: https://github.com/Qiskit/rustworkx Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: 0.12.0 Editor: !--editor-->@drvinceknight<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @szhorvat, @inakleinbottle Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7158473
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
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) by leaving comments 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 instructions & questions
@szhorvat & @inakleinbottle, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @drvinceknight know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Review checklist for @szhorvat
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @inakleinbottle
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper