[Bioperl-l] release numbers

[Hilmar Lapp]

Hey, what about tagging compatible code branches with the same _tag_ across all projects? That way version numbers can stay different, but packagers can just pull the same tag from every sub-project and put it together to form one supposedly inter-operating release. At least for the different bioperl* and biosql projects.

Too simple to be true?

	-hilmar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Stajich [mailto:jason@cgt.mc.duke.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:24 AM
> To: Elia Stupka
> Cc: Chris Mungall; Hilmar Lapp; Bioperl
> Subject: RE: [Bioperl-l] release numbers
> 
> 
> This was sort of a - no one else is making a decision - so 
> make a decision
> and see who screams....
> 
> I'd really prefer it if the go-to person on a project would 
> be in charge
> of pkging up their releases as I will, in the not-too-distant,
> future not be able to spend so much time tweaking version 
> numbers and tags
> for a release.  The more people who know how to do it, the better.
> 
> In fact, I can't oversee the 1.2 release in as much detail as the 1.0.
> If you're interested in being 1.2 release master, please 
> speak up so we
> can show you the ropes sooner rather than later.
> 
> For the record, I'll tag bioperl-pipeline with 0.1 and put 
> the pkg in its
> current state in my ftp dir for people to test.
> 
> I have no idea what version to tag bioperl-db with (we did a 
> 0.1 a while
> ago) but it should probably be done with a bioperl-schema 
> number embedded
> as ensembl does.  Someone else will have to make the decisions here on
> what the naming scheme and release schedule is.  Unfortunately since
> bioperl-pipeline depends on it, it will hold up its release.
> 
> I also don't know whether I should copy all the files from the
> biosql-schema directly into bioperl-db or if there is a 
> special directory
> structure, etc...   I assume they can be blanket copied...
> 
> We probably need to also tag the biosql-schema with a version 
> number so
> that the projects can be talking the same language.
> 
> 
> I'd prefer bioperl-run to be numbered 1.1, if we're going to make it
> arbitrary anyways, had we not split it off, it would still be part of
> bioperl-live w/ version 1.1.  However, if the votes are for 
> 0.1 then we
> can name it that as well.
> 
> So I'll release bioperl-1.1 and bioperl-run-0.1 initially 
> since they are
> ready to go, and the db/pipeline can be done as soon as the 
> db pkg is put
> together.
> 
> -jason
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Elia Stupka wrote:
> 
> > > You guys decide a version number and I'll append it to 
> the pkg name.
> >
> > Just saw this, thanks God ;) Ok, ours is still version 0.1
> >
> > Elia
> >
> > ********************************
> > * http://www.fugu-sg.org/~elia *
> > * tel:    +65 6874 1467        *
> > * mobile: +65 9030 7613        *
> > * fax:    +65 6777 0402        *
> > ********************************
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
>