[Bioperl-l] Priorities for a bioperl-1.6 release
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Wed Feb 13 14:11:34 EST 2008
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Brian Osborne wrote:
> You should be careful about the names of these packages. For
> example, Bio::Biblio and Bio::Restriction are not "in development"
> as the term bioperl-dev implies. They're tried and true. And there
> may be sets of modules that are experimental in "bioperl-dev", of
> course. Is it possible to have 2 packages, "dev" and "tools"? Or
> something along those lines?
> Calling things by the wrong names leads to confusion, witness the
> Bioperl newcomers who would install an antiquated version 1.4
> because it was labelled 'stable'.
I agree the name 'dev' is misleading. 'tools' or 'extras' sounds
better, maybe using 'dev' for experimental implementations, such as
Jason's SeqFeature::Slim or my SeqIO driver/handler modules. The
problem with the two namespaces you mention is lack of maintenance and
documentation, though I agree they're stable (so maybe in those cases
maintenance isn't an issue).
We do need to clean up documentation issues with those classes as well
as many more (mine included); POD/test coverage will help out there.
More information about the Bioperl-l