-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: multipers: Multiparameter Persistence for Machine Learning #6773
Comments
Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
Software report:
Commit count by author:
|
Paper file info: 📄 Wordcount for 🔴 Failed to discover a |
|
License info: ✅ License found: |
Review checklist for @yossibokorbleileConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @peekxcConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
👋 @DavidLapous, @peekxc, and @yossibokorbleile I hope everything is going well. Could you all provide a short few sentences/bullet points on how things are going with this review? Thanks and keep up the great work! |
@RMeli 👋👋👋 I am little behind where I had hoped to be, but it's going well. I am on holidays until July 1, and am aiming to finish the review by July 15. |
@yossibokorbleile great, thanks for letting us know! |
👋 @DavidLapous, @peekxc, and @yossibokorbleile I hope your review is processing well. Could you all provide a short few sentences on how things are going and if there are any blockers? Many thanks! |
@RMeli its going well! I just need to finish testing the installation and functionality, and read the documentation. |
Thanks for the update @yossibokorbleile! |
@RMeli I am also working on reviewing the docs and running the software. Unfortunately, the dependencies for this project are quite extensive; I currently cannot obtain a valid dependency resolution for the package |
👋 @RMeli @peekxc @yossibokorbleile Thanks for taking the time to review this! I'm curious of what's failing on your end for the installation. If you're not using windows (which is not supported, cf DavidLapous/multipers#6), a Could you open an issue / email me if you still have an issue there ? |
Hi all, thank you very much for all the updates. @peekxc and @yossibokorbleile, please do open issues in the repository (and please link this issue) if you encounter issues so that @DavidLapous can track them and take care of them. I'll also have a look at the installation procedure. |
@RMeli @DavidLapous I have managed to get multipers installed now using pip (still unsure what the initial issue was, but a fresh environment sorted it all out). I will leave checking compilation from source to @peekxc |
@RMeli @DavidLapous I have created the issue DavidLapous/multipers#13 which is about Mac M1/M2/... support. I can test the functionality on a Linux environment, but this will delay the day I can finish this review by. |
I'm glad this worked out in the end! |
Hiiiiiiiii @RMeli Managed to finish testing what I wanted to test. |
|
@DavidLapous while I go through the paper one final time, can you please create a new release and a corresponding archive? Please also have a look at the DOIs missing above. For PyTorch there is a citation I think; the other items that look like titles of the paper also can be found at leas on arXiv, so a DOI should be added. |
OK, no problem! Thanks for the update @RMeli !
|
Ah, I did not realise these publications had no DOIs for the actual publication. I'll inquire internally, and let you know. |
I just did a new release, archived with zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/13981409. |
Thanks @DavidLapous! |
I asked for the DOIs issue. We can leave the references like that since some conferences don't release them (it's annoying). Some other editors did suggest to switch to the arXive reference/DOI, but it is not necessary. |
@editorialbot set v2.2.0 as version |
Done! version is now v2.2.0 |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13981409 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13981409 |
@DavidLapous can you pleas
Thank you. |
Thanks for the update @RMeli! I just updated the archive's metadata title+authors. It should be fine now. |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Looks good @DavidLapous. I left a few final comments on the paper in DavidLapous/multipers#30 and then it is good to go. |
@editorialbot recommend-accept Thank you @DavidLapous for submitting to JOSS. Based on the extensive comments from the reviewers (and my own assessment), I'm happy to recommend this paper for acceptance! The EiC will now perform the final checks. Thank you for engaging so well with the review process. Thank you very much again @yossibokorbleile and @peekxc for the engaging in the review process! |
|
|
Element doi: [facet 'pattern'] The value '10/gtt7dq' is not accepted by the pattern '10\.[0-9]{4,9}/.{1,200}'. |
@DavidLapous using https://doi.org/10/gtt7dq redirects me to https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1489150 Can you please use the latter, which seems to have the expected format for the automated check? |
Done in DavidLapous/multipers@69f0ea1. |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/dsais-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6067, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
If it's not too late, I've updated an old reference (draft to published) in DavidLapous/multipers@1c2fde9. |
Submitting author: @DavidLapous (David Loiseaux)
Repository: https://github.com/DavidLapous/multipers
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.2.0
Editor: @RMeli
Reviewers: @yossibokorbleile, @peekxc
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13981409
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
@yossibokorbleile & @peekxc, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @RMeli 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 ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @yossibokorbleile
📝 Checklist for @peekxc
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: