DevNotes_15Jul2025 - SasView/sasview GitHub Wiki

General updates

  • Next contributor camp planning - any updates?
  • Hybrid SasView Tutorial with Munich (Dates still being negotiated but in Sep/Oct time frame)
  • Technical group still meeting but every other week on alternate weeks to regular developer meeting

Questions from Help desk

  • Any new issues needing broader discussion?

Status updates of ongoing projects

  • Two Yukawa S(Q) (Yun, Paul K.)
  • Shape2SAS (Kristian)
  • Status of CI automation (Jeff/James)
  • Refactoring Project (James/Lucas/Adam/Jeff)

Release work

  • 6.1.0 came out just before ICNS (congratulations all!!)
  • 6.1.1 release updates (James)
    • Code freeze target: mid-August
    • Final release: end of August. This coincides with the end of James' contract.
    • Expectation is that no new features will be needing to be merged to main before mid-August
      • merge all 6.1.1 PRs to main
    • Currently expecting no changes to sasmodels or sasdata

Discussions items

  • Dependabot issues
  • providing DOI for betas and rc
    • The argument at last meeting was to not do so. Further thoughts since then? (benefits, costs and contraindications)
      • Noted that once automation is fully working, adding a doi will become automatic for all tags?
  • providing independent DOI's for every individual sasview products (sasmodels, sasdata, sascalc? etc?)
    • There is a proposal on the table to do this (sasmodels issue #650)
      • Discussion of benefits, costs and contraindications
  • Ordering on the author list.
    • Currently it is alphabetical. However this is not spelled out in the agreed policy (https://github.com/SasView/sasview/wiki/contribution_acknowledgments) and is further violated in the recommended citation
      • Jeff's proposal:
        • The release manager's name is first
        • This is followed by everyone who has made a contribution to this particular release (in alphabetical order)
        • A contribution is defined as either making a commit to any of the SasView repositories, or other significant contributions e.g. leading meetings, reviewing PRs, extensive testing
        • Followed finally by contributors who have made a contribution in any prior release (again in alphabetical order)
      • Discussion: benefits, costs and contraindications
  • Code Quality
    • Reminder: Current Rules
    • Status/plans/thoughts on Ruff integration?
    • Status/plans/thoughts on CodeScene integration?

DOI Discussion Notes:

  • It is pointed out that Zenodo provides a separate project DOI
  • Two purposes identified for DOI: as the identifier of the code used and as recognition of the people who worked on it
    • PK points out that DOI is imperfect as an identifier and that the commit hash is the only sure method
    • Not clear how practical the above would be. DOI seems to be used for the purpose these days?
  • The separate SasView products (sasmodels etc) are used independently, sometimes as downstream dependencies so a separate DOI seems reasonable? However, for strict recognition purposes the general SasView project DOI should suffice? No clear consensus
  • Jeff withdraws his proposal for separating the creator list into two alphabetical lists based on active work during current release cycle.
  • Jeff suggests we implement his proposal to make the release manager name as the first author - there seems to be some consensus on that? Certainly the current citation suggestion in "cite SasView" needs to be changed.

PRs

AOB?