Nathan S. Haigh n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk
Tue Oct 17 14:37:38 UTC 2006

Chris Fields wrote:
> ...
>> So am I correct in saying that the best way is to make all updates to
>> the wikified versions of these files, and then at regular
>> intervals/major releases you (or someone else) will update the CVS
>> version of the files in the way describe above?
>> Cheers
>> Nath
> Yes.  I think the online docs will stay relatively stable.  A week or so ago
> Mauricio and I were discussing moving the dependencies list to it's own CVS
> document (since they pertain to all Bioperl installations, not just UNIX'y
> flavors).  I haven't done that yet since I was waiting on the INSTALL.WIN
> changes before I made any more changes.  Well, that and I've been really
> busy doing other things.
Sounds good.
> One way we could make sure that changes to the online docs would match the
> CVS docs would be to only allow certain wiki users (such as sysadmins) make
> modifications to those pages.  That way any changes would have to go through
> someone who also has CVS access and could make similar changes to the
> distribution docs.
Ugh, not sure I like the sound of maintaining 2 copies of any files - 
sounds like a future headache even if they are pretty stable. It also 
makes it unclear which of the two file should be considered first (i.e. 
is the most up-to-date) on pages such as:

It suggests that INSTALL and INSTALL.WIN should be looked at first, but 
there are online copies of those files available - this should now be 
the other way around - shouldn't it? I might just be making a mountain 
out of a molehill, so I'll shut up on this topic and make any future 
edits to the wiki pages instead.
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
> Dept. of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list