-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 270
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
Update documentation & revision guidance #693
Conversation
semantic linefeeds GitHub PR review interface
617a785
to
cfaa370
Compare
README.md
Outdated
pull request, and pitch in. Authorship criteria remain the same. | ||
We are currently working on manuscript revisions in response to two external peer reviews. | ||
See [Issue #678](https://github.com/greenelab/deep-review/issues/678) to coordinate this process. | ||
When addressing reviewer comments, please also update [`response-to-reviewers.md`](content/response-to-reviewers.md) as appropriate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you want to make this stronger? We'd like to not accept PRs on new topics unless they directly address review comments? Basically just "may" -> "will"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
couple suggested changes - largely LGTM, so just a few points
content/response-to-reviewers.md
Outdated
|
||
> The authors summarized over 400 literature references purely by narratives. The authors provided synopsis for each important reference, but lacks synthesis of related work. It would be better to synthesize related work into a table and analyze their characteristics. | ||
|
||
TODO |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the ones that just say todo
, do you want to add a link to the connected issue?
Do you want to use this as an opportunity to disable line length checks via codeclimate? |
LGTM now 👍 |
4f0b4b4
to
54770b5
Compare
This will help if quoted paragraphs are split when responding.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. Feel free to disable code climate if you'd like. I rely on Travis testing more.
README.md
Outdated
|
||
#### More about the manuscript. | ||
**Manubot updates:** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we also remind contributors to pull the latest version of master before making revisions? This was always the recommendation but will be even more important after #681.
README.md
Outdated
We are currently working on manuscript revisions in response to two external peer reviews. | ||
See [Issue #678](https://github.com/greenelab/deep-review/issues/678) to coordinate this process. | ||
When addressing reviewer comments, please also update [`response-to-reviewers.md`](content/response-to-reviewers.md) as appropriate. | ||
At the moment, efforts are concentrated on revisions: content unrelated to revisions may be deferred or not accepted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also would like to focus on merging existing pull requests, but this text is okay.
@@ -1,20 +1,11 @@ | |||
## Abstract {.page_break_before} | |||
|
|||
Deep learning, which describes a class of machine learning algorithms, has |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we try to merge some of the outstanding pull requests first? That may take too long, so I'm okay updating the line wrapping now if you think that is most efficient. We will need to provide help with merge conflicts for those pull requests though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I only reflowed the abstract assuming that none of the PRs touch the abstract. Yes, we should focus on reviewing existing PRs. They likely all have conflicts now. Tag me when it's time to merge and I will handle the conflict resolution. Sooner the better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dhimmel ah, I see. I reviewed this hastily between meetings.
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ | |||
# Response to Reviewers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great 👍
This build is based on f12c1d7. This commit was created by the following Travis CI build and job: https://travis-ci.org/greenelab/deep-review/builds/298164970 https://travis-ci.org/greenelab/deep-review/jobs/298164971 [ci skip] The full commit message that triggered this build is copied below: Update documentation & revision guidance (#693) * Add response to reviewers template Refs #678 * Update CONTRIBUTING.md semantic linefeeds GitHub PR review interface * Update README for current project status * Link issues in response to reviewers * Review formatting * Code Climate: disable line_length for markdown * Remove trailing whitespace * Reflow abstract: one line per sentence Refs #624 * Reviews: one line per sentence This will help if quoted paragraphs are split when responding. * Fix Blank line inside blockquote * Concentration on reviews wording * Prioritize open PR review * README: keep forks synced
This build is based on f12c1d7. This commit was created by the following Travis CI build and job: https://travis-ci.org/greenelab/deep-review/builds/298164970 https://travis-ci.org/greenelab/deep-review/jobs/298164971 [ci skip] The full commit message that triggered this build is copied below: Update documentation & revision guidance (#693) * Add response to reviewers template Refs #678 * Update CONTRIBUTING.md semantic linefeeds GitHub PR review interface * Update README for current project status * Link issues in response to reviewers * Review formatting * Code Climate: disable line_length for markdown * Remove trailing whitespace * Reflow abstract: one line per sentence Refs #624 * Reviews: one line per sentence This will help if quoted paragraphs are split when responding. * Fix Blank line inside blockquote * Concentration on reviews wording * Prioritize open PR review * README: keep forks synced
Refs #678