Describe the desired feature/enhancement
I'd like to have a formal group for non-programming or light programming biologists to contribute to Poly.
Is your feature request related to a problem?
Occasionally I find tiny bugs based on the biology rather than the code. Something like start codons being assumed to be at the start of every coding region.
Describe the solution you'd like
It'd be really great to have a group of biological reviewers that we can credit. My proposal for biological reviewers is that we give them some PR cred via adding their email at the bottom of the merge. This will help strengthen Poly's code and build more context between biologists and developers.
Describe alternatives you've considered (optional)
We could rely on formal peer review but I think it'd be better to bring biologists into the fold sooner. I'd also like to give reviewers paper cred when we finally get around to publishing Poly and releasing the big 1.0
Describe the desired feature/enhancement
I'd like to have a formal group for non-programming or light programming biologists to contribute to Poly.
Is your feature request related to a problem?
Occasionally I find tiny bugs based on the biology rather than the code. Something like start codons being assumed to be at the start of every coding region.
Describe the solution you'd like
It'd be really great to have a group of biological reviewers that we can credit. My proposal for biological reviewers is that we give them some PR cred via adding their email at the bottom of the merge. This will help strengthen Poly's code and build more context between biologists and developers.
Describe alternatives you've considered (optional)
We could rely on formal peer review but I think it'd be better to bring biologists into the fold sooner. I'd also like to give reviewers paper cred when we finally get around to publishing Poly and releasing the big 1.0