[Bioperl-l] Splits again

Sendu Bala bix at sendu.me.uk
Wed Jun 27 18:43:48 EDT 2007


Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>> But the main problem with this approach is that maintenance, global- 
>> style code improvements and releases become a nightmare. I could,  
>> perhaps, imagine a scenario where the repository stayed as-is (one  
>> monolithic collection), but the dist action of Build.PL could be  
>> altered to generate a release package per module instead of one big  
>> release package of all modules, as is currently the case.
>>
>> Is there much value in doing that? Does anyone want me to look into  
>> the feasibility of such a thing?
> 
> Not for the time being, at least in my opinion.  Too much on our  
> plate at this point with svn migration, test conversion, bugzilla  
> running over (next point of attack!), etc.  Maybe something to think  
> about after, though I like the idea of a few splits to core as Steve  
> suggested (SearchIO, Graphics, some LWP-related DB modules).
[snip]
> If a fix needed to be made in one set, make the fix, test against  
> bioperl 'base' as a whole, and release when possible.  No need to  
> wait for a full-fledged 1.5.3 release.

What advantage is there of these defined splits instead of individual 
modules? As I see it you lose some of the potential benefits of breaking 
Bioperl up completely, whilst also suffering the maintenance problems I 
outlined in my objection to Steve's post.

Being able to work on all Bioperl from a single cvs (ne svn) check out/ 
archive, whilst distributing it as individual modules on CPAN seems like 
the best of both worlds to me. What am I missing?


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list