[Bioperl-l] BioPerl 1.6 RC1
hlapp at gmx.net
Fri Jan 2 22:52:54 UTC 2009
On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Chris Fields wrote:
> Bio::PhyloNetwork [...] Does anyone think we should leave this out?
I would rephrase the question. I think it's a very valuable addition
to BioPerl, and the above may be understood as a vote on that, which
AFAIAC is not a vote we need to have.
Instead, I would ask the following. Generally, i) are there any
opinions on whether the Bio::XXX root namespace should be permissively
expanded, and ii) should new modules that have not been reviewed yet
by core devs be included in a stable release. Specifically with
respect to Bio::PhyloNetwork, are there opinions on i) moving or not
moving this to the Bio::Phylo::Network namespace, and on ii)
harmonizing or not the API as much as possible with the Bio::Tree APIs.
(Chris - you would probably agree that the publication neither answers
the above questions, nor guarantees for the API's stability.)
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at gmx dot net :
More information about the Bioperl-l