[Bioperl-l] Bio::Species, Bio::Taxonomy::Node overhaul
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Sat Aug 12 14:16:38 EDT 2006
On Aug 12, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
> Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>>> No, will do. Where would I put the changes? Add them into the 1.5.1
>>> section, or does the 1.5.1 section contain only the changes that
>>> present at the time of its first release? Should I make a 1.5.5
>>> instead? And should I move the Main trunk points to the new 1.5.5
>>> section as well?
>> I'm still confused as to why we are jumping from 1.5.1 to 1.5.5.
>> I'm confused as to why some of the pre-1.5.1 changes are under Main
>> Trunk, and not under 1.5.1. So I guess I'm the wrong person to
>> answer ...
> Well, Chris seemed to like 1.5.5, but 1.5.2 makes more sense to me.
> Shall we make it 1.5.2 Chris?'
I believe '1.5.5' originally came from Brian as suggestion for an
intermediate developer release prior to 1.6, that's why I brought it
up (I thought it was already decided upon). This came up sometime in
the spring when Jason was prepping for his defense and we were
thinking about future Bioperl releases.
We could easily change that to 1.5.2, 1.5.3 etc. (stick with point
releases), and have a few more point releases prior to 1.6. I have
no problem with that; makes more sense to me.
These are developer point releases anyway. Release 1.5 had bugs; v
1.5.1 fixed those. 1.5.2 and beyond can address bugs that pop up but
also introduce new modules, new functionality (UCSC), etc, all the
time working on the project priority list, tests, POD, etc. Once we
reach a particular point, we need to work towards making the next
stable release; i.e. stabilizing the API, completing other unfinished
business, and focus less on introducing new stuff. At least that's
the way I have understood the process from other projects. Sound
about right Hilmar?
From the FAQ:
"Developer releases are odd numbered releases (1.3, 1.5, etc) not
intended to be completely stable (although all tests should pass).
Stable releases are even numbered (1.0, 1.2, 1.6) and intended to
provide a stable API so that modules will continue to respect the API
throught a stable release series. We cannot guarantee that APIs are
stable between releases (i.e. 1.6 may not be completely compatible
with scripts written for 1.4), but we endeavor to keep the API stable
so that upgrading is easy."
Hilmar is also right in suggesting there is a problem with making
commits to Main w/o also including the tagged branches. I am as
guilty of this as everyone else, but I think much of this stems from
the lack of a new 1.5.* branch to commit to. This was a problem that
Fernan Aguero pointed out which has effectively 'hobbled' much code
in Bioperl 1.4, but we're now beyond the point of updating that now;
v 1.4 was released Dec. 2003 and way too much has been added since then.
Fernan's suggestion was to have someone (not the Release pumpkin)
maintain regular point releases for stable versions and suggested
himself for the job. These would be primarily to fix bugs (no API
changes allowed). I think it's a great idea; it frees up the
developers to think about the future by plotting a course for the
next developer release and the following stable release.
Lab of Dr. Robert Switzer
Dept of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
More information about the Bioperl-l