[Bioperl-l] bioperl reorganization
cjm at berkeleybop.org
Thu Jul 23 15:54:13 EDT 2009
OMG it's full of *s.
(and %s. and $s. and @s. and #s...)
On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Mark A. Jensen wrote:
> Open the pod bay doors, BioPerl.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Hannah" <jay at jays.net>
> To: <bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] bioperl reorganization
>> On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
>>>> If Bio::Foo::Bar is abandoned by all distributions, a new copy
>>>> of that dist is flagged DEPRECATED ("in favor of
>>>> Bio::Fooer::Bar"), and pushed to CPAN. That clues everyone in
>>>> that development has stopped and where they should go instead.
>>>> For example:
>>> Okay, but seems kinda crufty. I do think there is some talk of
>>> removing such modules from the active CPAN, as they would always
>>> be available as part of BackPAN, but I haven't seen movement
>>> along those lines.
>> DEPRECATED modules can be removed from PAUSE after 6 months or 1
>> year or 50 years or whatever. Better to have it explicitly flagged
>> and sitting out there than not flagged, misleading new users
>> seeking solutions on CPAN. Eventually completely gone.
>>> Yes, I have to say it has been very nice with Moose, though I
>>> wish MooseX::Declare and MooseX::Method::Signatures would move
>>> out of alpha (probably will happen around the first stable
>>> release of perl6).
>> Indeed. A current CPAN is no magic bullet for every development
>> dilemma. It's just better than a stagnant one. :)
>> There's still plenty of tactical argument and jockeying in
>> Catalyst and Moose. Like any healthy and active open source
>> project populated by energetic people.
>> On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
>>> I think both of you made very good arguments. Will have to
>>> nickname you guys the IRC Mob.
>> Oooo... I like it! I'll sketch up some tattoo designs. :)
>> On Jul 18, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Mark A. Jensen wrote:
>> Wow. That's awesome. :)
>>> My guess is that the NumDependencies values (which move fastest
>>> in the Degree sum and create the sawtooth pattern) reflect
>>> dependencies among the modules within the clusters. Wouldn't that
>>> be cool? I don't think this works, but the data could certainly
>>> be cajoled into giving us this.
>> Can the data be cajoled into proving that we've already split up
>> BioPerl, so we can avoid all that SVN drudgery? :)
>> BioPerl became self aware on August 17, 2009.
>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l