Re: Removing Bio::FeatureIO? was Re: removing packages from bioperl-live

I'm sure it will lead to lots of fun, but I suspect you are right and
it should be removed.  It's time you yank on that bandaid 

Scott

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Fields, Christopher J
<cjfields <at> illinois.edu> wrote:
> Probably should retitle this to ask the question directly (make sure the right radars are pinged).
>
> My vote is yes, it should be removed.  There were a lot of implementation issues with it that ended up
becoming problematic.  I do believe it is used, though, so I would like to get additional responses from the
community before removing it and pointing to the separate repository (where there has been a lot of
experimenting going on).
>
> chris
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Carnë Draug <carandraug+dev <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> some of the bioperl-live packages have already been split into
>> separate repositories. However, they were never actually removed from
>> bioperl-live. This creates 2 entry points for bug fixes and
>> implementations. After a chat on #bioperl, I was told to ask here.
>>
>> Should these be removed? For example, there's bioperl-FeatureIO but
>> that code alo exists in bioperl-live. Can I remove it from
>> bioperl-live?
>>
>> Carnë
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>> Bioperl-l <at> lists.open-bio.org
>> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l <at> lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

--

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cain, Ph. D.                                   scott at scottcain dot net
GMOD Coordinator (http://gmod.org/)                     216-392-3087
Ontario Institute for Cancer Research