...
Item | Notes | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shirts lab onboarding |
Made #check-ins
MT – What’s best way to get in contact with MS
MS – DD, you might be interested in dashboards for data. Look under #benchmarks channel | ||||||||||||
General onboarding | DD – Personal page and to-do list DD – Github org | ||||||||||||
Technical onboarding | Added DD to Slack
Confluence
Zoom
JW: Goal for managing admin overhead with 3 software scientists is to distribute responsibilities JW: Keeping DD out of most subgroup meetings for now, MT might join some. Inviting DD to property estimator call, MT and DD to openKim call Added DD to GitHub org There has been some friction/ambiguity about software quality in research code. Some students/postdocs are excited about software quality, others want to move quickly into the science. I’d like us to move toward a “Throw it over the wall” philosophy wrt scientific software developement – Apply minimum quality standard to postdoc/grad student code, but give them a lot of freedom outside of that. Once code is mature, they “throw” it to us, and we consider performing a major refactor in light of how it will be involved in project. | ||||||||||||
Dev docs plans and holdups | Draft documentation –
OE license decryption on master
| ||||||||||||
Making a development build |
Should we just provide instructions to install from Should we do Should we
| ||||||||||||
Do a PR live | We won’t actually do this – JW may have a patch ready to do this on tomorrow Big picture – When assigned, try to review within 48 hours, and say immediately if that’s not possible so that another reviewer can be tagged. Default to one reviewer, unless you know that the changes overlap several domains Software scientists and Chodera should be the only people approving toolkit PRs Convention – You can merge your own PR WITHOUT review if it’s just a cosmetic/typo fix. Otherwise always have one passing review. The SUBMITTER ALWAYS pushes the merge button, NEVER the reviewer.
JRW is release manager for OFFTK. MT will become release manager for System object. Review guidelines:
| ||||||||||||
OpenFF software | Status page – https://openforcefield.org/consortium/software/ Draft connectivity diagram – Not aspirational, but rather first draft of laying out FF optimization operation as of last June
End of day 1 (03-25-20) Start of day 2 (03-26-20) Thompson took some notes in parallel, recorded here: 2020-03-26 Software Scientist Onboarding notes (Thompson version) Travis check – DD and MT see if they can access openff toolkit settings
Software “health” in each area
Molecule representations
QCA molecule similarity criteria – http://docs.qcarchive.molssi.org/projects/QCElemental/en/stable/model_molecule.html#molecular-hash Jeffrey Wagner will send out link to Issue about need for QCAMol → OFFMol conversion and related difficulties Omnia recipes repo –
Standard release process (contains info about how to interact with Omnia recipes)
| ||||||||||||
Important repo parade | Add everyone to website
Day 2 onboarding ended here
| ||||||||||||
QCFractal compute situation | |||||||||||||
https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
Action items
- David DotsonJeffrey WagnerMatt Thompson will produce a draft of an up-to-date infrastructure diagram
- Jeffrey Wagner Look into whether we can make howdy that populates #check-ins
- Matt ThompsonDavid DotsonJeffrey Wagner will discuss git model for development/releases at a future meeting – Read https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
Dev docs
- Matt Thompson may look into alternative (simpler or more reliable) dev build options, and add to dev docs branch
- Jeffrey WagnerDavid DotsonMatt Thompson will form a task group to decide on formatting of dev docs (location (issue vs. wiki vs. with other docs in git repo), format, etc