Quoting Pascal Getreuer <getre...@gmail.com>:
Dear Miguel,
Thank you for organizing this effort to modernize the IPOL software
guidelines. It sorely needs to be done.
As a high level comment, I agree with the general theme of relaxing
constraints to encourage more submissions. I also agree with Pascal
Monasse's comment advising against removing "all the restrictions
unilaterally".
Of course.
Actually, I proposed to make some of the changes immediately because
they were already approved by the Editorial Board (such as allowing
MATLAB or Python) and I think it's important to change it as soon as
possible.
About other changes, note that I've send it to the discussion list.
Let me remind that the point of having the guide is to
"facilitate the production and review of verifiable and usable software for
reproducible research." Any rule that doesn't contribute toward that is
unnecessary, but on the other hand, you don't want a complete willy-nilly
free-for-all, so please consider
* portability -- if the code has obscure platform requirements, the
research isn't really "reproducible"
* readability -- if the code works but is a convoluted mess, reviewers and
users will have a hard time following what it does, and it won't be
"verifiable"
* usabillity -- if the code lacks a clear README or only interoperates
with an obscure file format, users won't know how to use it
I agree, of course.
My point is that the editor should have a more active role and use
these points as a checklist. These rules should be in the guidelines
for the authors, but instead of writing them as "you must..., it's
mandatory that..., etc" they should explain that their editor will
help them to have a code of quality by using these guidelines.
This implies changes in the writing of the text and most probably
rearranging the sections.
- We accept not only C/C++ but also Python and MATLAB and we're open
to other languages eventually.
Yes, the docs are badly out of date. The IPOL main page has an announcement
from 2015(!) "From now on, IPOL will accept Matlab source code. Very soon,
we will update the submission procedure accordingly." without corresponding
indication in the software guide.
- All those technical terms give the impression that we're going to
reject anything which does not follow exactly the norm of the compile
(C89, C99, C++98), which is not true.
Still, having standard conforming code for C and C++ seems important to
me for
portability. Naturally, as Python and Matlab have no such strict
standards,
this does not apply to them.
Like Pascal said, portability is important. Please nail things down a bit
to keep that. Do you want authors to make unlimited use of nonstandard C++
extensions? #pragmas? inline assembly? Probably not.
Of course not.
But the editor should guarantee that the code doesn't contain those.
If we guidelines seem to be really hard to follow, in practice we'll
have any of these:
1) Please not submitting because they're not technically competent to
follow these strict guidelines
2) People submitting anyway and Editors who don't really check the code.
Thus, let's keep the guidelines but let's also turn them into a
checklist for the Editors.
For C++, I suggest to loosen the guidelines to explicitly allow C++11
(possibly also C++14 and C++17). It is a huge step forward for the language
from C++98.
For Matlab, the toolboxes are often individually purchased and very
expensive. Encourage authors to use only what they need. Encourage
Octave-compatible Matlab code where possible.
If I'm not wrong, in the last Editorial Board meeting it was decided
that all the MATLAB code submitted should work in Octave too.
We should remove lines such as:
- max 80 characters per line, max 1000 lines per file
Again, why? We do not want messy code, this is not too much to ask from
authors.
Whether code fits in 80 chars or uses -Wextra in the makefile is pretty
superficial, and I am strongly in favor of removing such rules. But we want
to encourage readable code, and there should be some explicit guidelines.
It helps the reviewers focus on what we care about and gives something
authoritative for reviewers to lean on if they need to persuade an author
to clean up messy code. Based on code I have seen as an IPOL reviewer, the
main guidelines I would make are (1) "please indent code" (it is super easy
to do, there are automatic tools for it, and it really does help
readability), and (2) "please give variables and functions reasonable
English names, and try to make them correspond to the article".
I'll create a Google Doc with the proposed text and I'll send the link to
edit it.
I look forward to your Doc!
I have a preliminary Doc with my proposal for the guidelines.
I didn't write the URL publicly because this discussion list is public
and I don't want that it gets vandalized!
Pascal: I'll send you the URL in a separate email.
If anybody else wants the edit the Doc, please send an email and I'll
reply with the URL.
Best,
Miguel
Best,
Pascal
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Miguel Colom <co...@cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
wrote:
Quoting Jean-Michel Morel <moreljeanmic...@gmail.com>:
Dear all,
Enric is absolutely right to ask for a formal vote on a final text.
The preparation of the text might be done with an online google doc?
All right, then.
I'll create a Google Doc with the proposed text and I'll send the link to
edit it.
Best,
Miguel
Jean-Michel Morel
moreljeanmic...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Loic Simon <loic.si...@ensicaen.fr>
wrote:
Dear Miguel, Dear Enric,
I think that Miguel should send a draft of his proposed modifications and
it can be validated/amended by editorial board members without need of a
meeting. That would allow to at least correct quickly the misleading
information, and we can start a sound discussion on other points on which
there is no consensus.
Best,
Loïc
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Miguel Colom <co...@cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
wrote:
Quoting Enric Meinhardt-Llopis <enric.meinha...@cmla.ens-cachan.fr>:
Dear all,
You are talking about major changes to IPOL here. Should we summon
the whole editorial board to approve these changes? (arrange a
meeting, or send a mail to everybody with a poll to explicitly accept
each of the changes)
Maybe not all the people in the editorial board are reading this
mailing list, or maybe they are not reading it this week.
I want to have a voice in these changes but I'm not sure that this
mailing list reaches everybody.
Dear Enric,
I think that to remove the false information in the IPOL pages (Software
Guidelines, FAQ, help, etc.) is urgente and should be done now. Some of
that false claims are that we don't support MATLAB, among others. We
wouldn't be deciding anything new, but just correcting the docs.
About summoning all the Editorial Board or emailing them, as you wish.
My opinion is that we should be way more agile, in the sense that if we
detect that our information is false, that we can improve it quickly,
and
someone has already taken the responsibility to do it, then it should be
done immediately.
I'm afraid that if we don't be that agile, most of the time things won't
be done at all because we'll be waiting for eventual discussions that
won't
ever happen and in the worst case this wait will block the actions.
My proposal is to simply update the docs and to rearrange some parts
(move the C/++ to a dedicated part).
Given said that, if you really think that it's necessary that all the
Editorial Board votes, let's do that then. I'm not opposed at all.
Best,
Miguel
Best,
Enric
2017-07-04 16:10 GMT+02:00, Jose Luis Lisani <joseluis.lis...@uib.es>:
I agree with Miguel suggestions about the Submission Procedure and the
Software Guidelines.
I can update the information appearing in the web page, but first we
should all agree in the new guidelines.
--
IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
contact e...@ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
announces annou...@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
discussions discuss@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
--
IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
contact e...@ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
announces annou...@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
discussions discuss@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
--
IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
contact e...@ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
announces annou...@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
discussions discuss@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
--
IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
contact e...@ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
announces annou...@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
discussions discuss@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
--
IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
contact e...@ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
announces annou...@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
discussions discuss@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
