[Bioperl-l] Priorities for a bioperl-1.6 release

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Tue Feb 12 13:51:57 EST 2008

On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Sendu Bala wrote:

> Chris Fields wrote:
>> * perl 5.10 compliance (appears to mostly work now)
>> * outstanding bugs (core only)
>> * POD and test coverage
> I'm fine with everything you said, but I'll just say that, at a  
> minimum, the above is what needs to be done.

I think we should also try to get bioperl-db up to speed for the  
BioSQL 1.0 release (at least Bio::Species-related issues).

> Someone needs to step up and organise that 3rd point, since it will  
> require a lot of work. As I've already done work on the test suite,  
> if no one else expresses an interest I might look into it myself.

Jason and I discussed it off list (along with Nathan Haigh).  We also  
brought up the idea of smoke tests, which should pinpoint how stable  
bioperl-live distributions are.  Having those set up would pinpoint  
modules we think need to stay in core or should go into a separate  
'dev/extras' distribution.  We could test smoke/coverage/POD on those  
as well.

>> Now that SVN migration is complete
> Speaking of which, is there a way a file (like, oh, I don't know,  
> bioperl-live/trunk/t/lib/BioperlTest.pm) can exist just once in SVN  
> but be seen in other locations (like bioperl-run/trunk/t/lib/ 
> BioperlTest.pm)? Such that a commit to the version in bioperl-run  
> also affects the version in bioperl-live? Or is there some  
> appropriate other way to organise where cross-repository files are  
> kept and dealt with?

Maybe using external definitions, though I haven't messed with it  


One of the outstanding issues on SVN migration is the use of aliases  
for a checkout ('bioperl-all'); that would probably require setting  
svn:externals in some way.


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list