Create CITATION.cff

[abhro]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.74%. Comparing base (1ba84f0) to head (82a208c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #44   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.74%   90.74%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines         162      162           
=======================================
  Hits          147      147           
  Misses         15       15           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[cgarling]

I have a naive question: what's the point of this file? Can it be read by automated systems or something? It's not obvious to me that having a single author is valid here so if we are going to add this we should put some thought into its content (I would also argue that @icweaver's work with @fjebaker overhauls the initial implementation pretty significantly so they should be included).

I've only seen these files when there are associated papers that we want to make sure get cited (i.e., there are significant bibliographical elements). I think adding these when they are basically just saying "cite the GitHub repo" is not helpful as now we have author information listed in multiple places (in the README.md and this file). If we want to mention authors I think we should only do it in one place.

[giordano]

Can it be read by automated systems or something?

Yes, for example GitHub:

[abhro]

I have a naive question: what's the point of this file? Can it be read by automated systems or something? It's not obvious to me that having a single author is valid here so if we are going to add this we should put some thought into its content (I would also argue that @icweaver's work with @fjebaker overhauls the initial implementation pretty significantly so they should be included).

Oh, we can definitely include more authors as it's edited! The software is a "living" thing, so it's citation should be able to evolve as well. The CFF format actually has an option for citing specific versions/commits, but that looked like too much work for now to also maintain the citation file per commit/release. (Maybe it can be automated 🤷)

Also, I forgot to mention this before: the impetus for this PR was the "Citation" section in the docs, where the code block is a TODO. I'm not sure how exactly GitHub does the CFF to BibTeX conversion, but we could do that for the docs