From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id eC6sILoY616KXAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 07:33:14 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id SMGYHLoY615eXQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 07:33:14 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F15940703 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 07:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:47956 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlp2t-0004IC-6V for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:33:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45716) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlp2B-0003hn-Kk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:32:27 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:36222) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlp29-0007mU-55; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:32:27 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,525,1583190000"; d="scan'208";a="455312868" Received: from 91-160-117-201.subs.proxad.net (HELO ribbon) ([91.160.117.201]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Jun 2020 09:31:17 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: zimoun Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9CReproducible?= research articles, from source code to =?utf-8?Q?PDF=E2=80=9D?= References: <87d05ztcxj.fsf@inria.fr> <864kraxjau.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 1 Messidor an 228 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:31:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <864kraxjau.fsf@gmail.com> (zimoun's message of "Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:06:49 +0200") Message-ID: <87k104omnv.fsf@inria.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.134.164.83; envelope-from=ludovic.courtes@inria.fr; helo=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/18 03:32:17 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -68 X-Spam_score: -6.9 X-Spam_bar: ------ X-Spam_report: (-6.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel , guix-hpc@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: M7thSBj87ZjE Hi Simon! zimoun skribis: > For example, they are future bridges to think: connect the Guix archive > somehow with zenodo DOI and/or Software Heritage identifier. > > When I read this comment in the review [1]: > > As a final note, I wonder if, and how much, the author's > approach to reproducible computation/automated report generation > is feasible for the average scientist, in particular when > compared to tools with a smoother learning curve, such as Docker > containers, Jupyter notebooks, R Markdown documents and the > like. A brief analysis of this topic with a clear presentation > of the advantages of the author's approach in the Discussion > session would be worthwhile. > > and then the Konrad's answer [2], I asked myself what pieces are > missing. And what could be the articulation of "guix pack -f docker", > Guix-Jupyter or other notebooks (RMarkdown, Org)? And what could be a > practical workflow? (Keeping in mind that the average scientist is not a > Linux guru but often run MacOS or Windows.) > > 1: https://github.com/ReScience/submissions/issues/32#issuecomment-633739= 558 > 2: https://github.com/ReScience/submissions/issues/32#issuecomment-634149= 030 I don=E2=80=99t like the phrase =E2=80=9Caverage scientist=E2=80=9D, and we= =E2=80=99re talking about people with a PhD who definitely know how to learn. Apart from that, I agree with the comments above: putting it in the hands of scientists will be the real challenge. I think providing modules and ready-to-use =E2=80=9Ctemplates=E2=80=9D for people who use R+R= Markdown, or LaTeX, or Jupyter, etc. is a necessary step. > Half-related to the blog post. You mention elsewhere this baby channel > [3], maybe it could be worth to link it somewhere in the blog post. > Moreover, totally unrelated, I feel it lacks a list of "Scientific" > channels, as [4] or [5], maybe on hpc.guix.info > > 3: https://gitlab.inria.fr/guix-hpc/guix-past > 4: https://github.com/BIMSBbioinfo/guix-bimsb > 5: https://gitlab.inria.fr/guix-hpc/guix-hpc has a list of channels. I=E2=80=99ve added = Guix Past now. Thanks for your feedback! Ludo=E2=80=99.