[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"
bix at sendu.me.uk
Wed Nov 15 16:28:30 EST 2006
Brian Osborne wrote:
> One problem here, as I see it, is the fact that this change has been
> introduced just days before the intended release.
My intent is to go to RC4 instead, which pushes release a week or two
away. God knows I wanted to release over a month ago, but I'm a
> You won't find any mention of changing the build there, nor of Build.pl, or
> Module::Build. This page is a nice example of "best practice", where
> everything about the release is lined up and laid out, and making a big
> change at the last minute is not best practice. Now, has Bioperl always made
> a big deal out of best practice? No, but that's what's been nice about this
> particular release so far, an emphasis on doing things correctly.
This is assuredly all valid. But I feel this is a case of a necessary
last minute addition. Necessary because I don't feel the old Makefile.PL
is up to the job. Its merely unfortunate that I only discovered this so
late into the RC cycle. Evidently I and all the other testers don't test
the installation side of things, only the test scripts in t/.
> Also, I understand that you think that your approach is better but such a
> central change can't be adopted without discussion and some semblance of
> consensus. So far I'm not getting any sense that anyone is agreeing with the
> change but I am sensing discomfort with the idea, or resignation.
I asked for comments and discussions 5 days ago. The only responses were
positive or neutral (with reservations regarding putting it into 1.5.2,
but not for the idea itself). If you don't press on and make things
happen after positive feedback, nothing will ever get done at all.
So to clarify, is anyone actually uncomfortable or 'resigned' to the
idea? Does anyone feel strongly in favour of keeping Makefile.PL?
> I have no strong opinion one way or another, Makefile or Build, but I do not
> want to see significant changes at the last minute and I do not want
> significant changes coming unilaterally.
I agree. But again, I'm even less happy with the idea of releasing
something that I know is inadequate simply because I discovered that too
More information about the Bioperl-l