Institutional Support

[torrilhon]

Several of recently approved major pull-request for Trixi.jl, e.g., gmsh-support, parabolic AMR and improved tutorials, were issued from developers who were significantly supported by my institute (Lab for Applied and Computational Mathematics) at RWTH Aachen University.

With this pull request I suggest to add a section Institutional Support in the main readme.md of Trixi with a list of individual institutes, including a name, a logo and a link.

I initialized this list with the Numerical Simulation Group at Univ Cologne and my institute, and I am sure many more places deserve to be listed there, possibly in a meaningful order. This should be decided and kept updated by the developers. The list should be mirrored in the documentation, but I don't know how to do this.

Some background thoughts: I am very much in favor of open code and community software, but also believe that the way how code contributions are integrated into the scientific workflow is still insufficient. Author affiliations for individual commits and pull requests should become standard like in scientific papers. It is not sufficient to provide affiliations in the author profiles or author lists, because those may change. Past commits should keep their affiliations like past publlications do.

Until such a functionality is provided by github/git, I recommend to include the institutional support list in order to acknowledge the good-will of the places that let their people contribute to community software like Trixi.

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[ranocha]

I like this idea very much. Thanks a lot for initiating this!

I have added a list of additional institutes that come to my mind. Maybe we could brainstorm whether the list is complete and then add their logos etc.

[torrilhon]

Thanks for the positive feedback.

I added logos to the list with a little creativity.

Note, that I used my proposed HTML snippet to have logos and link nicely in a single line, which seems not to be supported by markdown, as far as I understood...

[sloede]

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are currently discussing internally how to best proceed with this, since there are a number of implications to consider. We (I) will then get back to you!

[torrilhon]

It's been a while now... Any progress?

[sloede]

As per our discussion, we'd like to continue working on this PR. In addition to the suggested change I proposed, could you please also update the file docs/src/index.md to match https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1989/files#diff-36c852523b6a7513a10b8a6bae21f1037eaa27484efc9042f75bbda46d9f529b? Feel free to request a review from me afterwards 😊

[torrilhon]

Interesting outcome, for sure. Obviously, I was aiming higher. But it is a first step. I am open for further discussion in the future.

[torrilhon]

There is no progress here. It may not be top-priority, but I also sense some reluctance to follow through. Let me clarify, that I am feeling really bad letting my people continue to contribute to Trixi, unless my institute is referenced in the Readme. Please make it happen.

[sloede]

There is no progress here. It may not be top-priority, but I also sense some reluctance to follow through. Let me clarify, that I am feeling really bad letting my people continue to contribute to Trixi, unless my institute is referenced in the Readme. Please make it happen.

Please accept my apologies @torrilhon. The request for review came right before my summer vacation and got lost in the purge afterwards.

Please note that in this PR the modifications to the README includes many more changes than just adding the section on participating research groups. It seems like the contents of docs/src/index.md were just copied over, which includes Documenter.jl-specific changes that lead to formatting issues in the (plain Markdown-rendered) README.md, such as these:

---

---

---

---

Thus, #1989 is, at the moment, still the better PR to proceed with.

There are two options: You can modify this PR - or recreate it from scratch - to contain only the relevant changes (essentially copy over the changes from #1989) or we can close this in favor and directly merge #1989. How would you like to proceed?

Again, I am sorry for the long time it took to get to it, this was not in bad faith but just an oversight on my part.