-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 296
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
Lessons as Packages #25
Comments
This is an interesting idea. Am I correct as interpreting this as much of an exploratory project as it is an attempt to create a working prototype? On the surface it seems trivial, but there seems to be a lot of interesting challenges lurking in the shadows. Are there potential challenges with licensing of package contents with this approach? I saw in the yaml for the conda packages it lists the license, but code, text, and data may potentially be licensed differently. |
Yes, this is a bit explanatory. |
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:07:51AM -0700, Donal Heidenblad wrote:
I think we should clarify the scope a bit, because Greg's demo 1 and The plan 6 rules out existing package managers (that do all of this EAPI="5" texlive-latexextra has authblk under preprint/ 1.1: https://www.ctan.org/pkg/authblk is in TeX LiveS="${WORDIR}" src_compile() { src_install() { I had to download the paper's source by hand because arXiv blocks the |
On 2015-03-22 2:07 PM, Donal Heidenblad wrote:
There's certainly a lot of exploration involved, but there has to be a
Yup - a working system will have to handle that without making the |
Hmm, is this about packaging lessons or packaging papers? The title |
I think (well, I hope) that a system capable of handling one will be
able to handle the other. The use cases are "I want to review your
paper" and "I want to combine your paper with two others to do new
research" - the first is more-or-less standalone, unless your paper
depends on your previous work, but the second is closer to the lesson
installation example.
|
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:52:20PM -0700, Greg Wilson wrote:
For “I want to rebuild your paper” or “rerun your simulation” (or For “I want to combine your paper with two others”, that's going to be Recording prerequisites as dependencies (what the user should know Or are we comfortable listing prerequisites in the text and letting You also point out issues with lesson interactivity (“how to re-set |
I am concerned with the suggestion that ebuild or any of the software make systems are "easy enough". Adoption is a huge issue and I think the plan nails it with: "creating a package manifest for each paper would require more effort than most scientists would be willing to put in". I think that is the primary hurdle, but maybe by focusing on lessons we could skirt the issue and focus on the technical challenges first. Lesson creators can be expected to suffer more hurdles than a scientist without a funding agency mandate. I guess the hope would be that the people packaging lessons would also try to package their papers, which could then identify friction points that would need to be addressed. So in the short term, we'd accept that most scientists would think we are crazy, but with the goal of making it easier over time. Once we start talking about managing lesson pre-requisites it starts to sound like we are talking about enabling lessons to be used outside of the workshops in more of an online learning context. That might be desirable, but there are mature tools available that could be used rather than extending a package manager. Packaging lessons complements both workshops and online learning, though, so it isn't exclusionary, just a question of identifying the right tools and defining the right scope. |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:55:38PM -0700, Donal Heidenblad wrote:
I agree, but I'm trying to put my finger on why these approaches have a. There's no incentive to package your paper/lesson for reuse. Even You can work around (b) by using a guest package manager (HashDist,
I don't think that this is the problem. Creating the manifest is easy
Yeah, this sounds right to me ;).
Such as… ? |
@donalus I don't know why @gvwilson forgot to include links to @khinsen's blog
The biggest problem with this idea is that we are being too greedy. What I can suggest given the time that you have to write a proposal is:
|
Thank you, @r-gaia-cs that is really helpful info. I agree with the greedy. My product manager brain didn't want to sign up for anything that I couldn't accomplish within the timeframe of GSOC. This scope seems reasonable and a good platform to build toward the rich feature set that I think we all want. I just talked to Carole Goble in the hallway after she gave a great plenary talk on reproducibility in research at the conference I am attending. Her slides heavily featured the SC/DC logos. It made me start thinking about this more heavily and want to tackle this challenge, so I will do my best to get something in for tomorrow's deadline. |
Great.
|
@r-gaia-cs Thanks for adding the references. There's also my recent article on ActivePapers (http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5773.2), which discusses the relation between software deployment, software preservation, and reproducible research. Package managers are primarily about software deployment, and the aim of this project is to extend them to reproducible research, which makes some excursion into the territory of software preservation inevitable. I see two reallly difficult aspects in this: (1) software preservation in such a system can be no better than what the underlying platform guarantees. Python + conda is neither great nor very bad in this respect, but as soon as you integrate C code, problems will certainly appear. (2) the user interface, or, put differently, working towards acceptance by scientists. Package managers don't have a great reputation for usability. Again conda is one of the nicer ones, so it's worth looking into. |
@khinsen Thanks for the link to your recent article and made it under CC0, ✨. Maybe with it I will understand ActivePapers once for all. =) @donalus There is less than 7h so if you want to work on that,
|
I'm closing this issue since student application period is over. |
The aim of this project is to build tools to turn lessons into packages that can be installed via standard package management applications. A proof of concept exists at https://github.com/swcarpentry/installable-lesson-demo-01, and more information is given in the ideas-list file.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: