Shorten the README chapter - #2
Conversation
|
I wonder why this pull request contains changes that were already committed earlier? I've made several comments on that commit that also apply to the changes (re)submitted here. |
|
|
||
| ### Involved Data | ||
| **Name and Description** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this change decreases the accessibility of the page, because Name and Description is still meant to be a heading, but not syntactically described as such. If the font size of the heading is to large, we should use CSS.
| We can see that the programs `make`, `pandoc`, | ||
| and `git` were identified as system dependencies. | ||
| Often, one can obtain their version by running them with the `--version` argument: | ||
| If you do *not* use `renv`, the easiest solution to get a list of all needed packages is the `sessionInfo()` command. *Call it **after** you loaded all necessary packages!* |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I'd agree. If we have to simplify it, I would recommend to add renv in the end (rather than from the beginning) or just provide the output of renv::dependencies(). sessionInfo() only lists packages that were used since the last time one restarted R, which is generally not sufficient. (And for the cases where sessionInfo() actually is useful, I'd still prefer sessioninfo::session_info().)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use the simplest and most viable approach (maybe renv::dependencies()) and defer rest to in-depth
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If they not mention the R version during some other step, consider also adding sessionInfo()
|
|
||
| ### List of Results |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Including a list of results is a recommendation by the AEA data editor Lars Vilhuber. I think it'd be nice if our tutorial were compatible with that, also to make it consistent with our other activities (e.g., the reproducibility check).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider mentioning the importance of references from the code to the tested hypotheses, but otherwise we remove this
| @@ -289,6 +228,6 @@ Of course, you would use the same license for the manuscript that you chose in t | |||
| ```{.md .code-overflow-wrap filename="README.md"} | |||
| ## License | |||
|
|
|||
| The manuscript files `Manuscript.qmd`, `Manuscript.tex`, and `Manuscript.pdf` by Josephine Zerna, Christoph Scheffel, and <YOUR NAME> are available under [CC\ BY-SA\ 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) or (at your option) under the [AGPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html) (or later). For further copyright information, see `LICENSE.txt`. | |||
| The manuscript files `Manuscript.qmd`, `Manuscript.tex`, and `Manuscript.pdf` by Josephine Zerna, Christoph Scheffel, and <YOUR NAME> are available under [CC\ BY-SA\ 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). For further copyright information, see `LICENSE.txt`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say this is too much of a simplification, as it's not good to release code under CC BY-SA 4.0 only.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make clear that we offer this as an option to the reusers, also be more prescriptive
| - make_readme.qmd | ||
| - archive.qmd | ||
| - section: "💡 In-depth material" | ||
| - section: "Excursus: In-depth material 💡" |
Convert to short tutorial
* Change some text to italics * Update citation
|
@nicebread @fkohrt feel free to close this PR whenever all of the feedback above has been integrated into the other repo. Afterwards, I'll update the README in this repo and archive it. |
|
I am confused – how do we apply this PR to the main repo? For example, the changes proposed to |
|
@fkohrt @nicebread I opened a new PR from this So I think we can close out this PR without taking further action. (I can't transfer the comments unfortunately, so you'll just need to cross-reference) |
|
You can continue to work on the |
3 participants
No description provided.