[Bioperl-l] Withdraw Bio::Graphics and Bio::DB::SeqFeature from bioperl distribution?
hlapp at gmx.net
Tue Nov 11 14:52:09 EST 2008
On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
> Yes people want a stable release, but calling it 1.6 doesn't make it
> stable. Doing the things in the plan for 1.6 makes it stable.
I think the main danger with a haphazard 1.6 stable release is to have
APIs in there that we aren't ready yet to commit to supporting beyond
1.6, or even beyond 1.6.0.
If there are hidden (or known) bugs, these can be declared, and fixed
in point releases. (I do feel pretty strongly that a much greater
frequency of point releases is necessary and healthy. There was talk
earlier this year that a 1.5.3 release is not worth the effort and
that we should aim for 1.6 right away. I think such consideration is
nearly always mistaken, and backfires - in this case the result of it
was that we have had neither 1.5.3 nor 1.6 for 8 months: those feeling
capable of shepherding 1.5.3 were told their time isn't needed, and
those wanting to take on 1.6 were intimidated by the necessary effort.
Had there been 3 point releases since then, we may have gotten to 1.6
in smaller steps at a time but eventually faster.)
As for sanctioning APIs that aren't ready to receive official blessing
by releasing 1.6, what about individual developers taking
responsibility and clearly label their module and interface
declarations as experimental if that's what they are. I don't think
it's unreasonable either to just declare all new (since 1.4) APIs that
haven't been vetted or approved by the core as experimental. They can
always be de-experimentalised later.
And finally - awesome Chris that you are volunteering to carry the 1.6
torch! Much thanks, and may the Force be with you :-)
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at gmx dot net :
More information about the Bioperl-l