samth

Here are all the entries in http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/ where I've mentioned problems in various Facebook/G+ threads.

A number of other errors are catalogued by Peter Bailis here: https://gist.github.com/pbailis/9629050

A Unicode error introduced by their process

Note: I'm a coauthor on this one.

• http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/data/oopsla12_StricklandTFF12_data.txt
• Data says: BUILD:COMMENT[string] Does not compile with raco make

michd

# Return current git branch prefixed with |, nothing if not in git repo
parse_git_branch() {
  git branch 2> /dev/null | sed -e '/^[^*]/d' -e 's/* \(.*\)/\|\1/'
}

# Returns some "dirty" flags if they apply, nothing if not in git repo,
# or current branch is clean.
# Flags: M = modified files, ? = untracked files, % = unresolved merges
# These flags are prefixed with a |
parse_git_dirty() {

tpoisot

Guidelines for contribution

This document described guidelines for contributions for projects led by members of the [Poisot lab of computational ecology][pl], Université de Montréal. It should be followed by lab members (at all times), as well as people with suggested added features, or willing to contribute enhancement or bug fixes.

Authorship

Any contribution to the code of a software grants authorship on the next paper

hodgestar

[
  {
    "category": "pyconza2014", 
    "state": 2, 
    "description": "PyConZA 2014 closing remarks.", 
    "language": "English", 
    "title": "PyConZA 2014: Closing Remarks", 
    "tags": [
      "pyconza", 
      "pyconza2014", 

mleinart

class FlexibleRequest(urllib2.Request):
  VALID_METHODS = [ 'GET', 'POST', 'PUT', 'DELETE', 'HEAD', 'TRACE', 'OPTIONS', 'CONNECT', 'PATCH' ]
  def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
    if 'method' in kwargs:
      if not kwargs['method'] in self.VALID_METHODS:
        raise ValueError("Invalid method specified: %s" % kwargs['method'])
      self.method = kwargs.pop('method')
    else:
      self.method = None
    urllib2.Request.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs)

stefanv

natebunnyfield

nate's teachers for soft circuitry/etextiles/etc:

• plusea / hannah perner-wilson
• lara grant
• lynne bruning
• becky stern
• leah buechley

nate's teachers for knitting, crocheting, sewing and such:

• several local meetup groups
• knittinghelp.com

jiffyclub

package { "dkms":
    ensure => latest,
}

package { "chromium-browser":
    ensure => latest,
}

package { "emacs":
    ensure => latest,

ivanov

#!/bin/bash
# git-recheckout: git reset to the upstream branch
#
# Your local checkout of a branch, and the remote branch it tracks are out of
# sync. You want to check it out again, discarding your version of the branch.
#
# Because you need to know the remotename/branchname string to reset to
#
# 1. get the remotename/the-branch combination
# 2. git reset remotename/the-branch

pbailis

edit: see http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Memos/Examining-Reproducibility/

Not deserving of a full post, but nonetheless worth writing about: @ongardie, @aalevy, and a few others on Twitter were surprised by the number of papers that were flagged as "not reproducible" according to the recent study at http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu. Digging deeper, it appeared that 1.) "code builds" is the standard for reproducibility in this study and that 2.) many broken builds were the result of missing dependencies on the researchers' systems.

I tried reproducing a few of the authors' "unreproducible" results. It's hard to vet 600+ research code repositories, but, with a little effort (< ~10 minutes each?), I was able to get all of the following to actually build (on Ubuntu 13.10). This doesn't inspire confidence in the reproducibility of the study results.

Peter pbailis@cs.berkeley.edu

• ["Quantifying the Mismatch between Emerging Scale-Out Applications and Modern Processors" in TOCS](http://reproducibility.cs.ariz