Following up on our earlier discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2017-October/011949.html I have split the simpleSingleCell workflow into three (four, if you include the introductory overview) self-contained Rmarkdown files. I am preparing them for submission to BioC's workflow builder, and I would like to check what is the best way to do this: i) Each workflow file goes into its own package. ii) All workflow files go into a single package. Option (i) is logistically easier but probably a bit odd conceptually, especially if users need to download "simpleSingleCell1", "simpleSingleCell2", "simpleSingleCell3", etc. Option (ii) is nicer but requires more coordination, as the BioC webpage builder needs to know that that multiple HTMLs have been generated. It's also unclear to me whether this will run into problems with the DLL limit - does R restart when compiling each vignette? Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm also happy to be a guinea pig for any SVN->Git transition for the workflow packages, if that's on the radar. Cheers, Aaron
[Bioc-devel] splitting simpleSingleCell into self-contained vignettes
9 messages · Obenchain, Valerie, Aaron Lun, Andrzej Oleś
Hi,
On 12/11/2017 08:49 AM, Aaron Lun wrote:
Following up on our earlier discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2017-October/011949.html I have split the simpleSingleCell workflow into three (four, if you include the introductory overview) self-contained Rmarkdown files. I am preparing them for submission to BioC's workflow builder, and I would like to check what is the best way to do this: i) Each workflow file goes into its own package. ii) All workflow files go into a single package. Option (i) is logistically easier but probably a bit odd conceptually, especially if users need to download "simpleSingleCell1", "simpleSingleCell2", "simpleSingleCell3", etc. Option (ii) is nicer but requires more coordination, as the BioC webpage builder needs to know that that multiple HTMLs have been generated. It's also unclear to me whether this will run into problems with the DLL limit - does R restart when compiling each vignette? You could do either but I'd say option 2 is easier from a maintenance standpoint and probably for the user. Maybe you've seen this but an example is the annotation workflow package which houses 2 workflows: ~/repos/svn/workflows >ls annotation/vignettes/ Annotating_Genomic_Ranges.Rmd Annotation_Resources.Rmd databaseTypes.png display.png Each has an informative name and is presented on the website as an individual workflow: https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/ I don't think more coordination is involved - you just have multiple files in vignettes/. And, as you mentioned, it's a bonus that when a user downloads the annotation package they get all related workflows. A fresh R session is started for each package but not for each vignette in the package. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm also happy to be a guinea pig for any SVN->Git transition for the workflow packages, if that's on the radar. Nitesh has created git repos for the workflow packages and Andrzej is adapting the BBS code to incorporate them into the builds. We guesstimate this will be done by the end of the year. You shouldn't have to do anything on your end - once we're ready to switch over we'll let you know and send the new location of the workflow in git. Val Cheers, Aaron _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org<mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org> mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
Thanks Val:
Obenchain, Valerie wrote:
Hi, On 12/11/2017 08:49 AM, Aaron Lun wrote:
Following up on our earlier discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2017-October/011949.html I have split the simpleSingleCell workflow into three (four, if you include the introductory overview) self-contained Rmarkdown files. I am preparing them for submission to BioC's workflow builder, and I would like to check what is the best way to do this: i) Each workflow file goes into its own package. ii) All workflow files go into a single package. Option (i) is logistically easier but probably a bit odd conceptually, especially if users need to download "simpleSingleCell1", "simpleSingleCell2", "simpleSingleCell3", etc. Option (ii) is nicer but requires more coordination, as the BioC webpage builder needs to know that that multiple HTMLs have been generated. It's also unclear to me whether this will run into problems with the DLL limit - does R restart when compiling each vignette?
You could do either but I'd say option 2 is easier from a maintenance standpoint and probably for the user. Maybe you've seen this but an example is the annotation workflow package which houses 2 workflows: ~/repos/svn/workflows >ls annotation/vignettes/ Annotating_Genomic_Ranges.Rmd? Annotation_Resources.Rmd? databaseTypes.png? display.png Each has an informative name and is presented on the website as an individual workflow: https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/
I didn't know that, thanks.
I don't think more coordination is involved - you just have multiple files in vignettes/. And, as you mentioned, it's a bonus that when a user downloads the annotation package they get all related workflows. A fresh R session is started for each package but not for each vignette in the package.
Ah. That's a shame, I was hoping to reduce the sensitivity to the DLL limit. But now that I think about it: maybe that's not actually a problem, provided the BioC workflow builders have a high DLL limit. The main issue was that *users* were running into the DLL limit; by splitting the workflow up, users should no be tempted to run everything at once, thus avoiding the limit on their machines. Of course, Bioconductor can control its own build machines, so as long as they set the MAX_DLLs high, it should still build and show up on the website.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm also happy to be a guinea pig for any SVN->Git transition for the workflow packages, if that's on the radar.
Nitesh has created git repos for the workflow packages and Andrzej is adapting the BBS code to incorporate them into the builds. We guesstimate this will be done by the end of the year. You shouldn't have to do anything on your end - once we're ready to switch over we'll let you know and send the new location of the workflow in git.
Cool, looking forward to it. -A
Val
Cheers, Aaron
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
The split-up workflows seem to have built successfully: http://docbuilder.bioconductor.org:8080/job/simpleSingleCell/ Is there something I have to do to get a blurb specific to each vignette, as observed for "Annotation_Resources" vs "Annotating_Genomic_Ranges"? The various vignettes are ordered pedagogically, so the order in which they are presented in the workflow page might require some manual specification. It would also be nice if the multiple simpleSingleCell workflows are grouped together, to avoid being intermingled with other workflows on the page. Finally, could we get a separate "single-cell workflows" section? The current "Basic/Advanced" partition is pretty crude, and I can see opportunities for more detailed stratification, e.g., by ChIP-seq, RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq, proteomics (including mass cytometry). Cheers, Aaron
On 11/12/17 20:24, Aaron Lun wrote:
Thanks Val: Obenchain, Valerie wrote:
Hi, On 12/11/2017 08:49 AM, Aaron Lun wrote:
Following up on our earlier discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2017-October/011949.html I have split the simpleSingleCell workflow into three (four, if you include the introductory overview) self-contained Rmarkdown files. I am preparing them for submission to BioC's workflow builder, and I would like to check what is the best way to do this: i) Each workflow file goes into its own package. ii) All workflow files go into a single package. Option (i) is logistically easier but probably a bit odd conceptually, especially if users need to download "simpleSingleCell1", "simpleSingleCell2", "simpleSingleCell3", etc. Option (ii) is nicer but requires more coordination, as the BioC webpage builder needs to know that that multiple HTMLs have been generated. It's also unclear to me whether this will run into problems with the DLL limit - does R restart when compiling each vignette?
You could do either but I'd say option 2 is easier from a maintenance standpoint and probably for the user. Maybe you've seen this but an example is the annotation workflow package which houses 2 workflows: ~/repos/svn/workflows >ls annotation/vignettes/ Annotating_Genomic_Ranges.Rmd? Annotation_Resources.Rmd databaseTypes.png? display.png Each has an informative name and is presented on the website as an individual workflow: https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/
I didn't know that, thanks.
I don't think more coordination is involved - you just have multiple files in vignettes/. And, as you mentioned, it's a bonus that when a user downloads the annotation package they get all related workflows. A fresh R session is started for each package but not for each vignette in the package.
Ah. That's a shame, I was hoping to reduce the sensitivity to the DLL limit. But now that I think about it: maybe that's not actually a problem, provided the BioC workflow builders have a high DLL limit. The main issue was that *users* were running into the DLL limit; by splitting the workflow up, users should no be tempted to run everything at once, thus avoiding the limit on their machines. Of course, Bioconductor can control its own build machines, so as long as they set the MAX_DLLs high, it should still build and show up on the website.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm also happy to be a guinea pig for any SVN->Git transition for the workflow packages, if that's on the radar.
Nitesh has created git repos for the workflow packages and Andrzej is adapting the BBS code to incorporate them into the builds. We guesstimate this will be done by the end of the year. You shouldn't have to do anything on your end - once we're ready to switch over we'll let you know and send the new location of the workflow in git.
Cool, looking forward to it. -A
Val
Cheers, Aaron
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
Aaron Lun Research Associate, CRUK Cambridge Institute University of Cambridge
The split-up workflows seem to have built successfully: http://docbuilder.bioconductor.org:8080/job/simpleSingleCell/ The various vignettes are ordered pedagogically, so the order in which they are presented in the workflow page might require some manual specification. It would also be nice if the multiple simpleSingleCell workflows are grouped together, to avoid being intermingled with other workflows on the page. Is there something I have to do to get a blurb specific to each vignette, as observed for "Annotation_Resources" vs "Annotating_Genomic_Ranges"? I'm happy to only have a blurb for the first workflow, given that I'd be just repeating myself for the others; but this depends on how it's organized on the webpage. Finally, could we get a separate "single-cell workflows" section? The current "Basic/Advanced" partition is pretty crude, and I can see opportunities for more detailed stratification, e.g., by ChIP-seq, RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq, proteomics (including mass cytometry). Cheers, Aaron
On 11/12/17 20:24, Aaron Lun wrote:
Thanks Val: Obenchain, Valerie wrote:
Hi, On 12/11/2017 08:49 AM, Aaron Lun wrote:
Following up on our earlier discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2017-October/011949.html I have split the simpleSingleCell workflow into three (four, if you include the introductory overview) self-contained Rmarkdown files. I am preparing them for submission to BioC's workflow builder, and I would like to check what is the best way to do this: i) Each workflow file goes into its own package. ii) All workflow files go into a single package. Option (i) is logistically easier but probably a bit odd conceptually, especially if users need to download "simpleSingleCell1", "simpleSingleCell2", "simpleSingleCell3", etc. Option (ii) is nicer but requires more coordination, as the BioC webpage builder needs to know that that multiple HTMLs have been generated. It's also unclear to me whether this will run into problems with the DLL limit - does R restart when compiling each vignette?
You could do either but I'd say option 2 is easier from a maintenance standpoint and probably for the user. Maybe you've seen this but an example is the annotation workflow package which houses 2 workflows: ~/repos/svn/workflows >ls annotation/vignettes/ Annotating_Genomic_Ranges.Rmd? Annotation_Resources.Rmd databaseTypes.png? display.png Each has an informative name and is presented on the website as an individual workflow: https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/
I didn't know that, thanks.
I don't think more coordination is involved - you just have multiple files in vignettes/. And, as you mentioned, it's a bonus that when a user downloads the annotation package they get all related workflows. A fresh R session is started for each package but not for each vignette in the package.
Ah. That's a shame, I was hoping to reduce the sensitivity to the DLL limit. But now that I think about it: maybe that's not actually a problem, provided the BioC workflow builders have a high DLL limit. The main issue was that *users* were running into the DLL limit; by splitting the workflow up, users should no be tempted to run everything at once, thus avoiding the limit on their machines. Of course, Bioconductor can control its own build machines, so as long as they set the MAX_DLLs high, it should still build and show up on the website.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm also happy to be a guinea pig for any SVN->Git transition for the workflow packages, if that's on the radar.
Nitesh has created git repos for the workflow packages and Andrzej is adapting the BBS code to incorporate them into the builds. We guesstimate this will be done by the end of the year. You shouldn't have to do anything on your end - once we're ready to switch over we'll let you know and send the new location of the workflow in git.
Cool, looking forward to it. -A
Val
Cheers, Aaron
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
Hi Aaron, Thank you. I've edited the workflow index page by introducing a separate "Single-cell Workflows" section, and by substituting the previous link to your workflow by links to the individual parts. As discussed during EuroBioc, I'm happy to restructure the index page by grouping workflows by topic. It would be really helpful if authors would chime in to suggest the most relevant sections for their workflows. Cheers, Andrzej
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Aaron Lun <Aaron.Lun at cruk.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
The split-up workflows seem to have built successfully: http://docbuilder.bioconductor.org:8080/job/simpleSingleCell/ Is there something I have to do to get a blurb specific to each vignette, as observed for "Annotation_Resources" vs "Annotating_Genomic_Ranges"? The various vignettes are ordered pedagogically, so the order in which they are presented in the workflow page might require some manual specification. It would also be nice if the multiple simpleSingleCell workflows are grouped together, to avoid being intermingled with other workflows on the page. Finally, could we get a separate "single-cell workflows" section? The current "Basic/Advanced" partition is pretty crude, and I can see opportunities for more detailed stratification, e.g., by ChIP-seq, RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq, proteomics (including mass cytometry). Cheers, Aaron On 11/12/17 20:24, Aaron Lun wrote:
Thanks Val: Obenchain, Valerie wrote:
Hi, On 12/11/2017 08:49 AM, Aaron Lun wrote:
Following up on our earlier discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2017-October/011949.html I have split the simpleSingleCell workflow into three (four, if you include the introductory overview) self-contained Rmarkdown files. I am preparing them for submission to BioC's workflow builder, and I would like to check what is the best way to do this: i) Each workflow file goes into its own package. ii) All workflow files go into a single package. Option (i) is logistically easier but probably a bit odd conceptually, especially if users need to download "simpleSingleCell1", "simpleSingleCell2", "simpleSingleCell3", etc. Option (ii) is nicer but requires more coordination, as the BioC
webpage
builder needs to know that that multiple HTMLs have been generated.
It's
also unclear to me whether this will run into problems with the DLL limit - does R restart when compiling each vignette?
You could do either but I'd say option 2 is easier from a maintenance standpoint and probably for the user. Maybe you've seen this but an example is the annotation workflow package which houses 2 workflows: ~/repos/svn/workflows >ls annotation/vignettes/ Annotating_Genomic_Ranges.Rmd Annotation_Resources.Rmd databaseTypes.png display.png Each has an informative name and is presented on the website as an individual workflow: https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/
I didn't know that, thanks.
I don't think more coordination is involved - you just have multiple files in vignettes/. And, as you mentioned, it's a bonus that when a user downloads the annotation package they get all related workflows. A fresh R session is started for each package but not for each vignette in the package.
Ah. That's a shame, I was hoping to reduce the sensitivity to the DLL
limit.
But now that I think about it: maybe that's not actually a problem, provided the BioC workflow builders have a high DLL limit. The main issue was that *users* were running into the DLL limit; by splitting the workflow up, users should no be tempted to run everything at once, thus avoiding the limit on their machines. Of course, Bioconductor can control its own build machines, so as long as they set the MAX_DLLs high, it should still build and show up on the website.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm also happy to be a guinea pig
for
any SVN->Git transition for the workflow packages, if that's on the
radar.
Nitesh has created git repos for the workflow packages and Andrzej is adapting the BBS code to incorporate them into the builds. We guesstimate this will be done by the end of the year. You shouldn't have to do anything on your end - once we're ready to switch over we'll let you know and send the new location of the workflow in git.
Cool, looking forward to it. -A
Val
Cheers, Aaron
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
-- Aaron Lun Research Associate, CRUK Cambridge Institute University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
Thanks Andrzej.
Thank you. I've edited the workflow index page by introducing a separate "Single-cell Workflows" section, and by substituting the previous link to your workflow by links to the individual parts.
Great, I'm looking forward to seeing it. Do you know how frequently the index page (I assume we're talking about https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/) updates? I assume your edits haven't propagated through the system yet.
As discussed during EuroBioc, I'm happy to restructure the index page by grouping workflows by topic. It would be really helpful if authors would chime in to suggest the most relevant sections for their workflows.
I can chip in with two that I'm involved in: "Differential Binding from ChIP-seq data <https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/chipseqDB/>" => ChIP-seq workflows "Gene-level RNA-seq differential expression and pathway analysis <https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/RnaSeqGeneEdgeRQL/>" => RNA-seq workflows Of course, it depends on how granular you want the topics to be. For example, I only see one ChIP-seq workflow, so that particular section might be a bit lonely for a while (I am planning to split that into two workflows later). Cheers, Aaron
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Aaron Lun <Aaron.Lun at cruk.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
The split-up workflows seem to have built successfully: http://docbuilder.bioconductor.org:8080/job/simpleSingleCell/ Is there something I have to do to get a blurb specific to each vignette, as observed for "Annotation_Resources" vs "Annotating_Genomic_Ranges"? The various vignettes are ordered pedagogically, so the order in which they are presented in the workflow page might require some manual specification. It would also be nice if the multiple simpleSingleCell workflows are grouped together, to avoid being intermingled with other workflows on the page. Finally, could we get a separate "single-cell workflows" section? The current "Basic/Advanced" partition is pretty crude, and I can see opportunities for more detailed stratification, e.g., by ChIP-seq, RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq, proteomics (including mass cytometry). Cheers, Aaron On 11/12/17 20:24, Aaron Lun wrote:
Thanks Val: Obenchain, Valerie wrote:
Hi, On 12/11/2017 08:49 AM, Aaron Lun wrote:
Following up on our earlier discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2017-October/011949.html I have split the simpleSingleCell workflow into three (four, if you include the introductory overview) self-contained Rmarkdown files. I am preparing them for submission to BioC's workflow builder, and I would like to check what is the best way to do this: i) Each workflow file goes into its own package. ii) All workflow files go into a single package. Option (i) is logistically easier but probably a bit odd conceptually, especially if users need to download "simpleSingleCell1", "simpleSingleCell2", "simpleSingleCell3", etc. Option (ii) is nicer but requires more coordination, as the BioC
webpage
builder needs to know that that multiple HTMLs have been generated.
It's
also unclear to me whether this will run into problems with the DLL limit - does R restart when compiling each vignette?
You could do either but I'd say option 2 is easier from a maintenance standpoint and probably for the user. Maybe you've seen this but an example is the annotation workflow package which houses 2 workflows: ~/repos/svn/workflows >ls annotation/vignettes/ Annotating_Genomic_Ranges.Rmd Annotation_Resources.Rmd databaseTypes.png display.png Each has an informative name and is presented on the website as an individual workflow: https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/
I didn't know that, thanks.
I don't think more coordination is involved - you just have multiple files in vignettes/. And, as you mentioned, it's a bonus that when a user downloads the annotation package they get all related workflows. A fresh R session is started for each package but not for each vignette in the package.
Ah. That's a shame, I was hoping to reduce the sensitivity to the DLL
limit.
But now that I think about it: maybe that's not actually a problem, provided the BioC workflow builders have a high DLL limit. The main issue was that *users* were running into the DLL limit; by splitting the workflow up, users should no be tempted to run everything at once, thus avoiding the limit on their machines. Of course, Bioconductor can control its own build machines, so as long as they set the MAX_DLLs high, it should still build and show up on the website.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm also happy to be a guinea pig
for
any SVN->Git transition for the workflow packages, if that's on the
radar.
Nitesh has created git repos for the workflow packages and Andrzej is adapting the BBS code to incorporate them into the builds. We guesstimate this will be done by the end of the year. You shouldn't have to do anything on your end - once we're ready to switch over we'll let you know and send the new location of the workflow in git.
Cool, looking forward to it. -A
Val
Cheers, Aaron
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
-- Aaron Lun Research Associate, CRUK Cambridge Institute University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
Thanks for you feedback Aaron!
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Aaron Lun <alun at wehi.edu.au> wrote:
Thanks Andrzej.
Thank you. I've edited the workflow index page by introducing a separate "Single-cell Workflows" section, and by substituting the previous link to your workflow by links to the individual parts.
Great, I'm looking forward to seeing it. Do you know how frequently the index page (I assume we're talking about https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/) updates? I assume your edits haven't propagated through the system yet.
Not sure, should be online by now https://github.com/Bioconductor/bioconductor.org/commit/a60c46f0942d9825f9a643321890ba5987de109b
As discussed during EuroBioc, I'm happy to restructure the index page by grouping workflows by topic. It would be really helpful if authors would chime in to suggest the most relevant sections for their workflows.
I can chip in with two that I'm involved in: "Differential Binding from ChIP-seq data <https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/chipseqDB/>" => ChIP-seq workflows "Gene-level RNA-seq differential expression and pathway analysis <https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/RnaSeqGeneEdgeRQL/>" => RNA-seq workflows Of course, it depends on how granular you want the topics to be. For example, I only see one ChIP-seq workflow, so that particular section might be a bit lonely for a while (I am planning to split that into two workflows later).
Right, we should probably avoid hair-splitting. We can start with a few, say 6, and split up further according to demand as new ones are introduced. Best, Andrzej
While we wait for the changes to come online: would you be open to PRs to workflow.md? I was thinking of making a nested list for the Introduction/part 1/part 2/part 3, which is a bit nicer to read. -A
On 12/12/17 22:11, Andrzej Ole? wrote:
Thanks for you feedback Aaron!
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Aaron Lun <alun at wehi.edu.au
<mailto:alun at wehi.edu.au>> wrote:
Thanks Andrzej.
> Thank you. I've edited the workflow index page by introducing a separate
> "Single-cell Workflows" section, and by substituting the previous link to
> your workflow by links to the individual parts.
Great, I'm looking forward to seeing it. Do you know how frequently the
index page (I assume we're talking about
https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/
<https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/>) updates? I assume your edits
haven't propagated through the system yet.
Not sure, should be online by now
https://github.com/Bioconductor/bioconductor.org/commit/a60c46f0942d9825f9a643321890ba5987de109b
> As discussed during EuroBioc, I'm happy to restructure the index page by
> grouping workflows by topic. It would be really helpful if authors would
> chime in to suggest the most relevant sections for their workflows.
I can chip in with two that I'm involved in:
"Differential Binding from ChIP-seq data
<https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/chipseqDB/
<https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/chipseqDB/>>" => ChIP-seq
workflows
"Gene-level RNA-seq differential expression and pathway analysis
<https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/RnaSeqGeneEdgeRQL/
<https://bioconductor.org/help/workflows/RnaSeqGeneEdgeRQL/>>" =>
RNA-seq
workflows
Of course, it depends on how granular you want the topics to be. For
example, I only see one ChIP-seq workflow, so that particular section
might be a bit lonely for a while (I am planning to split that into two
workflows later).
Right, we should probably avoid hair-splitting. We can start with a few,
say 6, and split up further according to demand as new ones are introduced.
Best,
Andrzej