[Bioperl-l] bioperl-dev or branch?

Mark A. Jensen maj at fortinbras.us
Thu May 21 20:26:54 UTC 2009

These are key points. I do believe (and think in these terms) that bioperl-dev 
modules are intended for the trunk, as soon as they are not so broken as to 
be testable by users. (my interp). See this thread to refresh memory: 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp at duke.edu>
To: "Chase Miller" <chmille4 at gmail.com>
Cc: "BioPerl List" <bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] bioperl-dev or branch?

> Moving this question to the BioPerl list, which is where we need to  
> discuss this I think. Can someone refresh my memory on what the  
> Bioperl-dev repository is or was meant for? It doesn't seem documented  
> on the wiki.
> My (admittedly vague) recollection is that bioperl-dev is basically  
> for highly experimental changes or functionality.
> I'm not clear why everything else shouldn't go either into the main  
> trunk or into a branch. If there is a realistic expectation for  
> something to be folded into the main trunk sooner or later, what would  
> be the reasons for not putting it into a branch of the main  
> repository? If we are putting it into a separate repository, we're  
> waiving a lot of svn's support for merging and resolving concurrent  
> edits.
> I would also go actually go a step further and suggest that even if  
> this GSoC project starts out on a branch (which I can see good reasons  
> for, such as eliminating fear to disrupt something), there should be a  
> plan to move to main trunk before the end of the project. We've had a  
> good tradition in BioPerl of developing directly on the main trunk. It  
> sometimes leads to occasional disruptions when lots of tests seem  
> failing, but it also encourages development discipline and make new  
> code to melt into the BioPerl code base without requiring any extra  
> steps by someone.
> Any and all thoughts or comments welcome and appreciated!
> -hilmar
> On May 21, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Chase Miller wrote:
>> This brings me to a question about where I should have my code  
>> repository.  Originally, I was going to use Bioperl-dev, but it was  
>> brought to my attention that that repository does not normally  
>> receive daily updates and it might not be the right place for my day  
>> to day development.  An alternative would be to use something like  
>> google code on a daily basis and commit to Bioperl-dev on a weekly  
>> basis.
> -- 
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
> ===========================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list