[Bioperl-l] bioperl-dev or branch?

[Hilmar Lapp]

On May 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Robert Buels wrote:

> I would agree with Sendu's assertion that there doesn't really seem  
> to be a need for a separate distribution for highly experimental  
> things, that role would probably be most straightforwardly performed  
> by a branch of the appropriate bioperl-* distribution.

Yes, if by "highly experimental things" we are talking about  
experimental versions of modules that already exist in either bioperl- 
core or bioperl-dev.

> In fact, having a separate bioperl-dev distribution could actually  
> be a headache for anybody wanting to actually install it (as in make  
> install from a tarball or something), since anything radioactive  
> enough to be in there is quite likely going to *conflict* namespace- 
> wise or at least functionality-wise with what's in bioperl-live.


Yeah I think that's why bioperl-dev and bioperl-core need to be  
disjoint sets. Or do you think that even in that case your scenario  
could be a problem?

	-hilmar
-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
===========================================================