[Bioperl-l] bioperl-dev or branch?
rmb32 at cornell.edu
Thu May 21 19:31:48 EDT 2009
Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> something to be folded into the main trunk sooner or later, what would
> be the reasons for not putting it into a branch of the main repository?
> If we are putting it into a separate repository, we're waiving a lot of
> svn's support for merging and resolving concurrent edits.
Just to clarify, it doesn't look like bioperl-dev is actually in a
separate repo, it's just separated from bioperl-live as a different
distribution, but still in the 'bioperl' repository. So it seems to me
there's no need to worry about being able to merge from it.
Sorry if I'm butting in on the larger organization issue here, since I
don't exactly have any history with this group, but here are my 2 cents,
they may or may not make sense: I would agree with Sendu's assertion
that there doesn't really seem to be a need for a separate distribution
for highly experimental things, that role would probably be most
straightforwardly performed by a branch of the appropriate bioperl-*
In fact, having a separate bioperl-dev distribution could actually be a
headache for anybody wanting to actually install it (as in make install
from a tarball or something), since anything radioactive enough to be in
there is quite likely going to *conflict* namespace-wise or at least
functionality-wise with what's in bioperl-live.
And by the way (I may be opening a can of worms here), wouldn't
bioperl-live be more appropriately called bioperl-core?
More information about the Bioperl-l