[Gepsc] final call - vote needed on one section

Lex Nederbragt lex.nederbragt at ibv.uio.no
Thu Feb 2 13:55:45 CST 2017


Vote added.

Apologies for lack of input from me, I’ve been buried in Research Bazaar preparations and activities (which luckily is loads of fun!). I hope to have a look at the paper tomorrow morning (night/early morning US time).

	Lex

> On 02 Feb 2017, at 16:18, Greg Wilson <gvwilson at third-bit.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've integrated Tracy's PR with Jenny's comments, and I think there's only one major issue to resolve.  If you look at:
> 
> https://github.com/swcarpentry/good-enough-practices-in-scientific-computing/blob/gh-pages/good-enough-practices-for-scientific-computing.tex
> 
> and go down to line 1205, Tracy suggests taking out the detailed analysis of why we recommend two different approaches for manuscripts.  I would like to keep it in (reasons in comments) - please all take a look and vote on https://github.com/swcarpentry/good-enough-practices-in-scientific-computing/issues/180 today.  (The deadline for resubmission is tomorrow.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nihil pro nobis sine nobis.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gepsc mailing list
> Gepsc at lists.software-carpentry.org
> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/gepsc



More information about the Gepsc mailing list