Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Need for an "advanced topics" part? #137

Closed
mih opened this issue Sep 2, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #450
Closed

Need for an "advanced topics" part? #137

mih opened this issue Sep 2, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #450
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@mih
Copy link
Collaborator

mih commented Sep 2, 2019

It occurred to me that we should decide whether or not we would consider a topic like "extending datalad" as in-scope scope for the book. It is clearly not "basic" and maybe not a use case. It would cover custom dataset procedures and writing one's own extension packages.

@mih mih added the question Further information is requested label Sep 2, 2019
@mih mih changed the title Needs for an "advanced topics" part? Need for an "advanced topics" part? Sep 4, 2019
@adswa
Copy link
Contributor

adswa commented Sep 4, 2019

From my point of view, everything that is "stable" (i.e. API not planned to change) can be a part of the "basics" section. With this in mind, I think many extensions can fit into this part of the book, and would also be relevant and well-fitting to existing content, e.g. datalad containers. A "how to write an extension" part sounds super interesting to me personally, and we could include this as a fully hidden section (I believe this is possible with a "hidden" directive at the very start of the file) to not have people stumble upon it.
This currently makes sense to me as it would keep a potential extensions chapter and how to write own extensions close to each other. But I also think that this is equally possible to have something like an "advanced" part for experts and people that want to become experts that we could link to...

I believe this question will be easier to answer once content for these sections exist, I'll hopefully get to that in a bit of time.

@adswa
Copy link
Contributor

adswa commented Jan 17, 2020

Since we have http://handbook.datalad.org/en/latest/basics/101-144-intro_extensions.html now, I'd suggest to add content on how to create a custom extension right afterwards with no additional "advanced topics" part. The section http://handbook.datalad.org/en/latest/basics/101-124-procedures.html also has a findoutmore on how to write your own procedures.

@adswa adswa closed this as completed Jan 17, 2020
@adswa
Copy link
Contributor

adswa commented Apr 14, 2020

I' revisiting this proposal as there are a few (upcoming) PRs that will go beyond basics of DataLad, namely

  • the chapter on scaling up
  • the chapter on DICOM to BIDS conversion
  • the chapter on FAIR processing at scale with the UKBiobank project.

We could end the "Basics" at the current chapter 9 ("Help yourself"), and introduce an "Advanced" part of the book. The tentative content of this book part would be:

  • Advanced options
  • Extensions for Neuroimaging (working title)
  • Go big or go home
  • FAIR processing at scale (working title)
  • tbc

This would make the Basics more managable: They'll appear shorter/less intimidating to a reader, they are almost complete content-wise (only metadata capabilities are missing, IMO). This book part could be marked as somewhat "stable", with little rearrangements or major changes (apart from maintenance) to be likely. Also, the Basics (and only the Basics) would be completely narrative-based. The more advanced chapters stray from the "Datalad-101 course" narrative.

@adswa adswa reopened this Apr 14, 2020
@mih
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mih commented Apr 14, 2020

I like the idea of drawing a thicker line between basics and the rest.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants