Florent Angly | 6 Feb 03:51 2013

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

On 06/02/13 06:59, Fields, Christopher J wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Carnë Draug <carandraug+dev <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5 February 2013 19:34, 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).
>> Mentioning Bio::FeatureIO was just an example. I meant to ask it as
>> more general. If the code is already in a separate repository, should
>> it be removed from bioperl-live?
>> Carnë
> Yes for Bio::FeatureIO, no for Bio::Root::Root and the others at the moment (I want to get a release out by
March 1, which I'm planning on announcing later today, so the less disruptive it is the better).  Once we get
a new release out we should remove the rest.
> chris
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l <at> lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

Sounds good to me (I've been burnt once by the fact that Bio::FeatureIO 
is in two places).