On 1 April 2013 23:23, Fields, Christopher J wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Carnë Draug
>> Can I merge any branching between these and bioperl-live and set them
>> up so you only have to run dzil on their repos?
> I wouldn't worry about the branches, they are probably too stale. Have
it so dzil works for the various repos from that project (it should
I tried but I don't have push permissions for Bio-Root like I have for
the other BioPerl repos.
> We will likely need to think about having a stub Build.PL that can be
used for basic installation, but would be auto-generated based on the needs
for that repo (and so shouldn't be committed to). This is mainly to help
git-savvy users, not devs; we don't necessarily want users to install dzil,
which had somewhere north of 40 or so dependencies IIRC.
Bah! People using development versions should be prepared to act as
developers. Otherwise they should be content with the stable released
versions. Development versions are not meant to be stable. I see no
reason to give users the chance to shoot themselves, specially when
it's more work for developers and maintainers.
> Re: versioning: I'm not particularly hung up on any particular versioning
scheme, but the key point is support. It's easy for me to say "as of
bioperl v2 the installation scheme will be something completely different"
as opposed to doing so with v1.7. Will installation of v1.7 be the same is
it was for v1.6 (or even similar)? Will it install the same modules by
default? We would be changing a key step in using BioPerl (installation)
w/o much warning.
That is my idea yes. Exactly what happened with Bio-Biblio, it changed
close to nothing. There were a few minor changes on the code to pass
the tests already in place, bust mostly it was in POD to use the
BioPerl's distzilla and podweaver configuration.