8 Feb 2013 13:08
Re: BioPerl long-term, was Re: dependencies on perl version
Leon Timmermans <l.m.timmermans <at> students.uu.nl>
2013-02-08 12:08:06 GMT
2013-02-08 12:08:06 GMT
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Carnë Draug <carandraug+dev <at> gmail.com> wrote: > Short version: > I'd recommend to split the project into much smaller ones. Some of the > small ones will wither and die but those are the less important ones, > and will allow the others, the ones that people care about, freedom to > grow faster. Bioperl would still be just one project, that > incorporates a hundred or so of smaller modules. Let those who care > the most about a specific module to take care of it and make the > releases. Releasing a module becomes much simpler, which means more > releases, more activity, and the smaller code base for each module > also make it less intimidating for new contributors. That has been a goal for some time now, but it's fairly complicated. Not only do we have a LOT of modules (bioperl-live alone is more than 900), they also have complicated dependencies. I've attached the results of my static dependency analysis of bioperl-live. I suspect this split-up needs to done by automated graph analysis, it's too much to do by hand. Leon
_______________________________________________ Bioperl-l mailing list Bioperl-l <at> lists.open-bio.org http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
RSS Feed