5 ms·

Downvoters: explain? Maybe this suggestion is aimed too much at a specific piece of technology (Docker). But there are plenty of tools out there to create repro

Downvoters: explain? Maybe this suggestion is aimed too much at a specific piece of technology (Docker). But there are plenty of tools out there to create reproducible builds, which I think is the overall point of this response

afarrell 6y ago
Speculation: many downvoters are people who have repeatedly had a frustrating user experiences and are just exasperated at being repeatedly told how thier tools are good enough.
TheGallopedHigh 6y ago
There is so much on the plate of the academic that to learn yet another piece of software — like docker which can be trying at the best of times — is yet another straw that can break the back.
mattkrause 6y ago
I didn't downvote but... I'm skeptical that specific tools and "formalities" like requiring Docker containers will do a lot to improve the quality of scientific research. Obviously, being able to re-run an old analysis is better than not being able to do so but that wouldn't have helped (much) with this issue The root cause here was a conceptual problem, not a library version mismatch. They used the same data to a) group data points into bins and b) test for differences between those bins. Having a perfectly-engineered, smoothly-running pipeline might have made it easier to confirm the result, but I don't think it would help detect it. The things that would have things like rewarding collaboration (more eyes make bugs shallower) instead of rewarding mostly lead authorship, time and support to carefully mull over findings instead of a helter-skelter rush to publish, and a publication culture that doesn't avoid ambiguity. Those are much harder to achieve though....
CJefferson 6y ago
Because, as far as I can tell, docker doesn't make easy reproducible images. How do I make a docker file which will create the same image, bit for bit (at least version for version) in 2 years time? I find usually it's required to update packages, which is good for security, bad for not breaking things.

afarrell 6y ago

Speculation: many downvoters are people who have repeatedly had a frustrating user experiences and are just exasperated at being repeatedly told how thier tools are good enough.

TheGallopedHigh 6y ago

There is so much on the plate of the academic that to learn yet another piece of software — like docker which can be trying at the best of times — is yet another straw that can break the back.

mattkrause 6y ago

I didn't downvote but... I'm skeptical that specific tools and "formalities" like requiring Docker containers will do a lot to improve the quality of scientific research. Obviously, being able to re-run an old analysis is better than not being able to do so but that wouldn't have helped (much) with this issue The root cause here was a conceptual problem, not a library version mismatch. They used the same data to a) group data points into bins and b) test for differences between those bins. Having a perfectly-engineered, smoothly-running pipeline might have made it easier to confirm the result, but I don't think it would help detect it. The things that would have things like rewarding collaboration (more eyes make bugs shallower) instead of rewarding mostly lead authorship, time and support to carefully mull over findings instead of a helter-skelter rush to publish, and a publication culture that doesn't avoid ambiguity. Those are much harder to achieve though....

CJefferson 6y ago

Because, as far as I can tell, docker doesn't make easy reproducible images. How do I make a docker file which will create the same image, bit for bit (at least version for version) in 2 years time? I find usually it's required to update packages, which is good for security, bad for not breaking things.