BIG UPDATE to the pyOpenSci Peer Review Guide

[lwasser]

Hi Everyone! I just wanted to highlight a recently MASSIVE UNDERTAKING on our peer review guide. The entire guidebook has been reworked and revised. This was a lot of work that took about 2 months to complete! As such, i am guessing there are still typos and issues to be found.

view guidebook online now!!

Please take some time (if you have it) to review the guidebook. Pr’s with text fixes are welcome. issues with process updates are also welcome here on github

many thanks to @Batalex @NickleDave ari, @cmarmo and others for contributions to this guidebook. please share this !!

[NickleDave]

The guidebook looks great and we are set up to get back in action! (plus or minus a couple PRs to fix typos )

I know you have put so much into this @lwasser and we are all just happy to have a chance to contribute

[lwasser]

thanks @NickleDave i’m also realizing how much input comes from our discussions in addition to actual commits need to figure out how to capture all of that in our packaging guide!!

And totally - review and submit pr’s / issues as need be. that’s super welcome. i appreciate you and everyone here!!

[NickleDave]

@lwasser

need to figure out how to capture all of that in our packaging guide!!

Time to bring the all-contributors bot back to life?

[lwasser]

We could! but also i discovered I can do this while rebasing!! so it also hits the spot between that and the zenodo file! ADD: Documentation section to our packaging guide by lwasser · Pull Request #14 · pyOpenSci/python-package-guide · GitHub

i am learning from the yoda of all things git @xmnlab
although admittedly i discovered @ people creates a link in a commit message by mistake.

Szymon made a lot of comments but didn’t modify text via commits so i was able to tag them!