[PRE REVIEW]: CMinx: A CMake Documentation Generator

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ryanmrichard (Ryan M. Richard)
Repository: https://github.com/CMakePP/CMinx
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @robertodr, @peanutfun
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b94149935c6140affd5842c3126b573a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b94149935c6140affd5842c3126b573a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b94149935c6140affd5842c3126b573a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b94149935c6140affd5842c3126b573a)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @ryanmrichard. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@ryanmrichard if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

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

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.12 s (941.8 files/s, 78652.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          33            905           1426           2561
reStructuredText                40            892            954            602
CMake                           19            173            432            412
YAML                            15             56            277            281
Markdown                         1             14              0            130
ANTLR Grammar                    1             30             14             75
TeX                              1              9              0             68
make                             1              4              6             10
TOML                             1              2             13              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           112           2085           3122           4146
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1118

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

@ryanmrichard - thanks for your submission. I'll be the editor for it.

Can you suggest potential reviewers? If so, please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @).

One source of potential reviewers is this list of people who have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

Also, @ryanmrichard, you will need to add more to your README - see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#documentation for what the reviewers will look for.

[ryanmrichard]

@danielskatz Thanks for your comments. As far as reviewers go:

1. robertodr would be a really good choice. He has done quite a bit of research/work pertaining to creating CMake infrastructure. Plus he is on the list.
2. ashok-arora says they are comfortable reviewing CMake
3. peanutfun is the lowest reviewer on the list with CMake as a language

I admittedly am only going off what's on the list for the latter two and do not know anything about them.

Also, @ryanmrichard, you will need to add more to your README - see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#documentation for what the reviewers will look for.

I will go ahead and add the requested information to the README. It should not take too long as all of that information is already present in the documentation. I misread the part of the instructions pertaining to needing that information in the README also. Sorry about that.

[danielskatz]

Thanks for the suggestions. As we need to find two reviewers, additional suggestions may be needed; they don't have to be from people on the list.

[danielskatz]

👋 @robertodr - Would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[danielskatz]

👋 @ashok-arora - Would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[danielskatz]

👋 @peanutfun - Would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[robertodr]

wave @robertodr - Would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

Yes, sure thing!

[danielskatz]

Thanks!
I'll add you, and once we find another reviewer, we will start the review

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @robertodr as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@robertodr added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

👋 @ryanmrichard - any more reviewer suggestions?

[ryanmrichard]

Based on your reviewer list maybe zbeekman, pratikvn, or scivision? They are the only other reviewers who list CMake as one of their programming languages (although I suspect a number of the C/C++ reviewers know CMake even if they do not list it).

Based on conference interactions (namely Supercomputing and DOE's ECP conference) I know a lot of scientific software developers are interested in the functionality provided by CMinx, but unfortunately I do not know of too many other academics actually implementing similar functionality. robertodr was the only academic I could think of who is in this space and I arguably do not have a conflict of interest with.

[peanutfun]

@danielskatz I am interested in reviewing this submission but I am currently on vacation until 29 August. If starting the review after that date is still suitable, I would be happy to do so!

[danielskatz]

@peanutfun - thanks for your interest. I'll add you, and start the review, but will note that you will be delayed a bit in your part

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @peanutfun as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@peanutfun added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4680.

[robertodr]

Yes, sure thing!

…

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022, at 16:14, Daniel S. Katz wrote: 👋 @robertodr <https://github.com/robertodr> - Would you be willing to review this JOSS submission? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4676 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA4JOEPHD5G6N7DB3VXEJPLVY6UTTANCNFSM56ODS77Q>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>