Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👋 @danielskatz - would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

👋 @eendebakpt

1. there seem to be a bunch of reference problems in the compiled PDF. If you fix the .md, you should be able recompile here by adding a new comment that starts with:
   @whedon generate pdf

2. Can you suggest reviewers, perhaps from this list of people who have already agreed to review for JOSS, or from outside the list as well. I think it would be good to get one reviewer who can check the Python API as well as the C++ source.

@whedon assign @danielskatz as editor

OK, the editor is @danielskatz

@whedon commands

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧

# Compile the paper from a custom git branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

@whedon list reviewers

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@danielskatz Thanks for picking this up. I updated the references in the paper. As for reviewers:

Based on Python/C++ experience: pragyansmita, katyhuff or djmitche
Based on Python and content experience: tupi

👋 @pragyansmita @katyhuff @djmitche @tupi - Would a couple of you be willing to review this submission?

I can definitely take a look!

This is somewhat outside my wheelhouse conceptually and I'm a bit overcommitted at the moment, so I should be a reviewer of last resort for this one. Hopefully @pragyansmita or @tupi are available. If not, let me know.

For my reference, since I haven't reviewed anything here since volunteering, these are the reviewer guidelines.

Aside from the community guidelines noted above, everything looks on the up-and-up. I would like a general pointer in the docs or README to what the heck a Conference Design is -- it's a particularly difficult thing to search for, since there are a lot of Design Conferences out there. A quick sentence about how this might be used would be helpful, too. The paragraph beginning "As an example" in [EN95] was tantalizing, but of course I can't see the second page!

I took some extra time to stare at the LICENSE file, as it identifies some separately-licensed bits (the MPL2 bits, in particular, concern me). However, I think this is fine: anyone using this software in an open-source context will automatically be compliant with the MPL2 license, and anyone using it in a proprietary context has the information they need available to them in LICENSE. Whether that means that the package is essentially MPL2-licensed is neither something I can figure out, nor particularly important to the review. Which is a long way of saying that it's nice to see proper attention paid to licensing, and I see nothing to be concerned about here.

I perused the C++ and Python source. I didn't look at everything, and certainly didn't understand the meaning of much of what I saw. But the code looks well-structured and well-documented. Nothing seems alarming or suggestive of any systemic issues. This looks like solid, efficient numerical software.

Thanks @djmitche - let me try to find another reviewer, then I'll open a review issue, where you can check off stuff like you've started to do above...
Sorry for the delay.

👋 @pragyansmita & @tupi - I'm checking again to see if one of you might be willing to be the second reviewer for this submission...

Update: I've found another reviewer via email, and once I get his github username, I will add him and start the review.

@whedon assign @djmitche as reviewer

OK, the reviewer is @djmitche

@whedon add @tanaken-basis as reviewer

OK, @tanaken-basis is now a reviewer

@whedon start review

OK, I've started the review over in #1097. Feel free to close this issue now!