[Bioperl-l] release numbers

[Chris Mungall]

surely bioperl-db should be version syncd with biosql-schema rather than
with bioperl?

so do we force biosql-schema to 1.1 - and biojava and so on with it...?



On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> Hm. That automatically bumps all other packages to maturity? Well, if it saves a lot of hassle for the actual user ... does it really?
>
> 	-hilmar
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Stajich [mailto:jason@cgt.mc.duke.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 2:18 PM
> > To: Bioperl
> > Subject: [Bioperl-l] release numbers
> >
> >
> > Shall we release the bioperl-run, bioperl-db, and
> > bioperl-pipeline pkgs
> > with the same version number as bioperl (1.1).  We can do it s.t.
> > bioperl-pipeline 1.1.1 is compatible with bioperl 1.1 but
> > bioperl-pipeline
> > 1.2 is not necessarily?  This sort of means we have to do the
> > major pkg
> > releases in lock step with the bioperl core releases.  Is
> > this okay or is
> > it going to be a major pain later on?
> >
> > I don't want us to get into confusing situtations for users - as it is
> > already a pain upgrading perl modules w/o doing with a pkg manager.
> >
> > -jason
> >
> > --
> > Jason Stajich
> > Duke University
> > jason at cgt.mc.duke.edu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioperl-l mailing list
> > Bioperl-l@bioperl.org
> > http://bioperl.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l@bioperl.org
> http://bioperl.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>