[IPOL discuss] [IPOL edit] Suggested changes in Submission Procedure/Author Manual
Pascal Getreuer
getreuer at gmail.com
Mon Jul 24 19:40:29 CEST 2017
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". 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
> - 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Yes, the docs are badly out of date.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.
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.
>> 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!
Best,
Pascal
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Miguel Colom <colom at cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
wrote:
> Quoting Jean-Michel Morel <moreljeanmichel at 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
>> moreljeanmichel at gmail.com
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Loic Simon <loic.simon at 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 <colom at cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Enric Meinhardt-Llopis <enric.meinhardt at 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.lisani at 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 edit at ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
>>>>> news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
>>>>> announces announce at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
>>>>> discussions discuss at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
>>>>
>>>> contact edit at ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
>>>> news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
>>>> announces announce at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
>>>> discussions discuss at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
>>>
>>> contact edit at ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
>>> news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
>>> announces announce at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
>>> discussions discuss at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/
>
> contact edit at ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/
> news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/
> announces announce at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/
> discussions discuss at list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tools.ipol.im/mailman/archive/discuss/attachments/20170724/cbe365bb/attachment.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list