Fields, Christopher J | 9 Feb 07:43 2013

Re: BioPerl long-term, was Re: dependencies on perl version

On Feb 8, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Leon Timmermans <l.m.timmermans <at> students.uu.nl> wrote:

> 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
> <deps.dot><deps.png>

Leon, 

I'm hoping we can do this sooner than later.  In fact, if we proceed with make a 'v1' branch or something
similar, we can start extricating out code sooner than later (next few weeks).

chris

Gmane