[Bioperl-l] release numbers

[Jason Stajich]

What do you want the tag name to be?

1.1 is an unstable release and as such bioperl-db is probably not a stable
release - for biosql are we tagging off the capetown branch or the head?

Elia - I'll put a sql dir in the pipeline directory for the release code.

Additionally if we create a shared tag, we can do some CVS magic so that
people can checkout all the cvs modules under a single name, (try cvs
checkout bioperl right now).

-jason




On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> 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 suppose  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
> >
> >
>

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