Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign up[REVIEW]: qtools: A Python toolset for the Q molecular simulation package. #935
Comments
whedon
assigned
kyleniemeyer
Sep 11, 2018
whedon
added
the
review
label
Sep 11, 2018
whedon
referenced this issue
Sep 11, 2018
Closed
[PRE REVIEW]: qtools: A Python toolset for the Q molecular simulation package. #930
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @malramsay64, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
Sep 11, 2018
@mpurg @malramsay64 @esguerra @fdroessler |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
malramsay64
commented
Sep 11, 2018
@mpurg I have taken an initial look and raised a number of issues. To be clear, only the issues with '[review]' in the title are the ones which require action based on the review criteria. The others are more suggestions which I think would make the software better. I am happy to help fix or discuss any issues. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
esguerra
commented
Sep 18, 2018
•
@mpurg @malramsay64 @fdroessler @kyleniemeyer Thanks for the invitation and what a great idea this is, Mauricio |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
Sep 22, 2018
@esguerra OK, thanks for letting me know! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
Sep 22, 2018
whedon
unassigned
kyleniemeyer
Sep 22, 2018
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
OK, @esguerra is no longer a reviewer |
whedon
assigned
fdroessler,
kyleniemeyer and
malramsay64
Sep 22, 2018
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
Sep 22, 2018
@fdroessler @malramsay64 Have your reviews progressed? I noticed that many/most of the checkboxes in the review list above are not filled. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
fdroessler
commented
Sep 22, 2018
@kyleniemeyer I should be able to get to it beginninof next week. I am currently traveling in Africa but have looked at the paper and can start the full review process shortly. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
malramsay64
commented
Sep 24, 2018
@kyleniemeyer I have some time this week set aside to continue my review. I had somewhat put it on the side expecting some response from @mpurg to the issues I have raised. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
mpurg
commented
Sep 24, 2018
Hi all, sorry for vanishing. @malramsay64 thanks for all the comments and issues you raised, I will address them later today. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
fdroessler
commented
Oct 2, 2018
Sorry I wanted to check if the following item: |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
fdroessler
commented
Oct 2, 2018
@kyleniemeyer @mpurg I have been through my checklist now and will wait till some of the issues that @malramsay64 and myself have raised are addressed. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
Oct 2, 2018
@fdroessler the item about archival references mean in the paper |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
malramsay64
commented
Oct 10, 2018
@mpurg The updates you have been making to the code are all great. There is still the documentation which needs more explanation aimed at a new user. Feel free to get in contact if you want some ideas or feedback as you make changes. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
mpurg
commented
Oct 10, 2018
Hi @malramsay64, @kyleniemeyer, @fdroessler |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
malramsay64
commented
Oct 10, 2018
@mpurg fine by me, just ping me when your ready. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
Oct 11, 2018
@mpurg |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
Nov 5, 2018
Hi @mpurg, just wanted to check on the status of your revisions—hope your PhD defense went well! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
mpurg
commented
Nov 6, 2018
It went well, thanks.
I'll go over the revisions in the following days, I should be done in a
week or so.
…On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, 12:44 Kyle Niemeyer ***@***.*** wrote:
Hi @mpurg <https://github.com/mpurg>, just wanted to check on the status
of your revisions—hope your PhD defense went well!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#935 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACO_ZJ-0EgeaboyZcsNhKmp3U3j2hTixks5usHkBgaJpZM4WiifB>
.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@kyleniemeyer — I manually removed the checklist for the unassigned reviewer, to avoid confusion and left-over un-ticked marks. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
mpurg
commented
Jan 20, 2019
Hi, I realized while looking at the revisions that the code needs
substantial refactoring to be publication-ready, and have been focusing on
that.
Is it possible to extend the review process or would it be more appropriate
to retract and resubmit when done?
Sorry for the inconvenience.
V V sob., 19. jan. 2019 ob 17:09 je oseba Lorena A. Barba <
notifications@github.com> napisala:
… @kyleniemeyer <https://github.com/kyleniemeyer> — I manually removed the
checklist for the unassigned reviewer, to avoid confusion and left-over
un-ticked marks.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#935 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACO_ZHO3enDksIpntRsFVFxabriR87Rmks5vE5esgaJpZM4WiifB>
.
|
labarba
added
the
pending-major-enhancements
label
Jan 20, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Thanks, @mpurg. We'll add this label here |
labarba
added
the
paused
label
Jan 20, 2019
arfon
added
paused
and removed
paused
labels
May 11, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
danielskatz
commented
May 20, 2019
Your thoughts? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kyleniemeyer
commented
May 20, 2019
I agree, if @mpurg feels the same. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
If this submission is withdrawn (and given the long delay, I agree that it should), we would ask the authors to please provide a link to this issue when they submit again (via a comment in the Pre-Review issue). This way, we can recall the history and possibly ask the same reviewers if they are still willing to contribute a review. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
mpurg
commented
May 20, 2019
Hi all, I agree that the submission be withdrawn and apologize for any
inconvenience.
Thank you reviewers for your valuable feedback.
…On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:08 PM Lorena A. Barba ***@***.***> wrote:
If this submission is withdrawn (and given the long delay, I agree that it
should), we would ask the authors to please provide a link to this issue
when they submit again (via a comment in the Pre-Review issue). This way,
we can recall the history and possibly ask the same reviewers if they are
still willing to contribute a review.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#935?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAR36ZD6UXDGM72H7TTXA6TPWMAMJA5CNFSM4FUKE7A2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODVZ5Y2A#issuecomment-494132328>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR36ZCJPTWOQIMOZ2BFXE3PWMAMJANCNFSM4FUKE7AQ>
.
|
danielskatz
added
withdrawn
and removed
paused
labels
May 20, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
danielskatz
commented
May 20, 2019
Thanks - I will go ahead and withdraw this. |
whedon commentedSep 11, 2018
•
edited by labarba
Submitting author: @mpurg (Miha Purg)
Repository: https://github.com/mpurg/qtools
Version: v0.6.1
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @malramsay64, @fdroessler
Archive: Pending
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) 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
@malramsay64 & @esguerra & @fdroessler, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.
Review checklist for @malramsay64
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Review checklist for @fdroessler
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?