JOSS paper preparation

[danielfromearth]

Manuscript draft

This PR is intended for revisions and improvements to the manuscript draft being prepared for submission to the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS).

Paper format: The manuscript is prepared as a Markdown (paper.md) file with references in a paper.bib file, following the JOSS formatting guidelines.

For a PDF preview: With docker installed locally, a PDF preview of the draft manuscript can be generated, by running the following from the earthaccess root directory (as described in the JOSS guidelines's docker section):

docker run --rm \
    --volume $PWD/paper:/data \
    --user $(id -u):$(id -g) \
    --env JOURNAL=joss \
    openjournals/inara

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://earthaccess--1249.org.readthedocs.build/en/1249/

[github-actions]

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 16fb7b9

I will automatically update this comment whenever this PR is modified

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 38cad6a

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 6af0701

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 767ad52

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit dce192c

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit ae74db7

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 05f7616

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit bb5fd2f

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit db3a969

[jules32]

Hi! Great work on this Danny! A few commits and some suggestions to consider.

[jules32]

I know some decisions of what not to do were really important. If I remember correctly, it was features that were discussed then developed elsewhere rather than earthaccess. I'd suggest emphasizing this here, it's a big deal!

[danielfromearth]

I put in a blurb about this below ("Contribute upstream, don't accumulate") – could really use more eyes on it!

[mfisher87]

We could symlink this in to our docs!

[mfisher87]

after the v1.0.0 release

I would say let's not wait. We've demonstrated impact and I think that matters more.

Alternatively, let's just go 1.0.0 in the short term and be OK with quickly moving to a 2.0.0 release with breaking changes.

I think both are fine, but the latter sets more a precedent of maintainers taking the user impact of breaking changes too lightly.

[danielfromearth]

after the v1.0.0 release

I would say let's not wait. We've demonstrated impact and I think that matters more.

Alternatively, let's just go 1.0.0 in the short term and be OK with quickly moving to a 2.0.0 release with breaking changes.

I think both are fine, but the latter sets more a precedent of maintainers taking the user impact of breaking changes too lightly.

I'm fine with either too. I also think the decision could be on hold until one of the two things – (i) co-author reviews/revisions, (ii) development for v1.0.0 – is completely ready-to-go.

done