Public demo manuscript

[agitter]

I really liked the PSB workshop manuscript @dhimmel set up to teach Manubot to potential users. Should we consider creating a manubot/demo manuscript that we could advertise in this paper?

The pros would be that it could help us attract users by showing them how easy editing is once a manuscript is set up. The cons would include the @manubot organization members needing to monitor it and approve pull requests. We could set some rules to help make it easier to approve pull requests, like forbidding images so that we wouldn't have to check the licensing.

[dhimmel]

We could set some rules to help make it easier to approve pull requests

We don't want it to become like https://github.com/illacceptanything/illacceptanything? haha!

Should we consider creating a manubot/demo manuscript that we could advertise in this paper?

I think this is a great idea. I can set it up.

like forbidding images so that we wouldn't have to check the licensing.

Sometimes it's helpful for users to be able to play around with figures, but yes we could be strict should licensing confusion become an issue.

At least at the beginning, the time required to maintain this repo should be minimal.

[agitter]

At least at the beginning, the time required to maintain this repo should be minimal.

And if there is a lot of activity, that would be a good problem to have. Reviewing demo pull requests would also be a low-commitment way for someone to contribute to the @manubot org.

[vsmalladi]

That is a great idea.

[vincerubinetti]

Would it make sense to combine this in some way with manubot/rootstock#169 ?

[agitter]

@vincerubinetti I'm not strongly opposed to combining them, but I do see the two example manuscripts as serving different purposes. The demo's goal would be to encourage prospective users to experiment with citations, formatting, pull requests, etc. It could get quite long and messy. The example in the rootstock repository is a carefully-curated document showcasing Manubot/Markdown/Pandoc's features.

[agitter]

@dhimmel I assigned you to this issue based on your response above. If you can't set this up before we resubmit, I could work on it instead.

[agitter]

I suggest we create a new Getting started with Manubot subsection that can expand upon the current sentence:

An example repository demonstrates Manubot’s features and serves as a template for users to write their own manuscript with Manubot.

We can reference this new public demo and the discussion in #104, including the newly expanded 02.delete-me.md that illustrates Manubot's features.

[dhimmel]

I like the idea of a "Getting started with Manubot". I can write this. We'll also note in this section that the manubot architecture may change drastically, but we will try to make migration manageable and will provide migration support to existing manuscripts.

What should we name the repo? Some possibilities:

• manubot/demo
• manubot/sandbox
• manubot/practice

[agitter]

I like manubot/practice because it acts as an invite for users to actively modify the content. manubot/try-me would convey the same thing but doesn't sound very good.

manubot/demo is my second choice.

[dhimmel]

I like try-me. Let's get some input from @slochower @vincerubinetti @cgreene @vsmalladi.

[slochower]

I like manubot/try-me (it's in the spirit of 02.delete-me.md).

[vincerubinetti]

manubot/playground?

[agitter]

That's another good suggestion. My new ordering is:

1. try-me
2. playground
3. practice

I'd be happy with any of those. We could also be more explicit and use manubot/try-manubot.

[dhimmel]

try-manubot is descriptive. I also like playground, but think it's a bit less descriptive.

[dhimmel]

Okay I created https://github.com/manubot/try-manubot. Still need to create a PR that updates the README documentation.