[Bioperl-l] bioperl-dev or branch?
hlapp at gmx.net
Thu May 21 21:38:09 EDT 2009
On May 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Robert Buels wrote:
> 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-* distribution.
Yes, if by "highly experimental things" we are talking about
experimental versions of modules that already exist in either bioperl-
core or bioperl-dev.
> 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.
Yeah I think that's why bioperl-dev and bioperl-core need to be
disjoint sets. Or do you think that even in that case your scenario
could be a problem?
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at gmx dot net :
More information about the Bioperl-l