[Bioperl-l] bioperl-dev or branch?
hlapp at duke.edu
Thu May 21 16:00:54 EDT 2009
Moving this question to the BioPerl list, which is where we need to
discuss this I think. Can someone refresh my memory on what the
Bioperl-dev repository is or was meant for? It doesn't seem documented
on the wiki.
My (admittedly vague) recollection is that bioperl-dev is basically
for highly experimental changes or functionality.
I'm not clear why everything else shouldn't go either into the main
trunk or into a branch. If there is a realistic expectation for
something to be folded into the main trunk sooner or later, what would
be the reasons for not putting it into a branch of the main
repository? If we are putting it into a separate repository, we're
waiving a lot of svn's support for merging and resolving concurrent
I would also go actually go a step further and suggest that even if
this GSoC project starts out on a branch (which I can see good reasons
for, such as eliminating fear to disrupt something), there should be a
plan to move to main trunk before the end of the project. We've had a
good tradition in BioPerl of developing directly on the main trunk. It
sometimes leads to occasional disruptions when lots of tests seem
failing, but it also encourages development discipline and make new
code to melt into the BioPerl code base without requiring any extra
steps by someone.
Any and all thoughts or comments welcome and appreciated!
On May 21, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Chase Miller wrote:
> This brings me to a question about where I should have my code
> repository. Originally, I was going to use Bioperl-dev, but it was
> brought to my attention that that repository does not normally
> receive daily updates and it might not be the right place for my day
> to day development. An alternative would be to use something like
> google code on a daily basis and commit to Bioperl-dev on a weekly
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
More information about the Bioperl-l