[Bioperl-l] release numbers

[Jason Stajich]

Definitely.

You guys decide a version number and I'll append it to the pkg name.

-jason
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Chris Mungall wrote:

>
> 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
> >
>

-- 
Jason Stajich
Duke University
jason at cgt.mc.duke.edu