[Biojava-dev] biojava 4 release planning

[Spencer Bliven]

Since this is a major version, we should focus on refactoring projects
which will alter the API. There are only a couple things I'm working on
that fit that. #126 <https://github.com/biojava/biojava/issues/126> is a
major undertaking and will probably happen for 5.0 at the earliest. The
symmetry code will consist of adding features, so this could be slated for
4.1, as could DSSP (#112 <https://github.com/biojava/biojava/issues/112>).
Of course there's no harm in including them in 4.0 if they're done, but we
shouldn't wait for them.

I'll try to look through the issues and assign milestones for each, but
what I see as important to finish is deciding the biojava3 issue (see other
thread), finish logging (#155
<https://github.com/biojava/biojava/issues/155>), and a minor project I've
been working on to refactor the structure CLI code. Personally, I think mid
November would be reasonable to shoot for. Then we can start on 4.1
development (with a 5.0 branch for any api-changing commits).

-Spencer

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Jose Manuel Duarte <jose.duarte at psi.ch>
wrote:

>  To me 1 month sounds a bit early. In any case to go with the "release
> early, release often" philosophy, we can really try to push it soon, say in
> a couple of months.
>
> What about setting a target date of December (before the 15th)? I think
> that can be helpful for everyone involved to get ready for it.
>
> The milestone 4.0 in github doesn't show so much:
>
> https://github.com/biojava/biojava/milestones/BioJava%204.0.0
>
> But I think some other things are missing there, for instance
> nice-to-haves in the structure module would be: improving structure
> alignments (#126), reorganising symmetry code, finish secondary structure
> implementation (#112)... All of these are of course optional, they can
> always be pushed back if we can't reach them on time.
>
> As for core and other modules I really have no clue. It would be nice if
> someone can say if there are plans to add new features there.
>
> An important issue we should really address is eliminating the biojava3
> naming that some packages now have. The reason behind those names is
> apparently keeping compatibility with biojava legacy, but by now we can
> probably do without that. I'd say simply eliminating the 3 would do the
> trick. Otherwise take an approach like blast where they kept a blast+ and a
> blast legacy. I'd favour simply eliminating the 3, it should help to keep
> it simple.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>
> On 09/10/14 00:11, Andreas Prlic wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> The upcoming new biojava 4 series has mad a lot of progress recently. How
> do people feel about trying to release BioJava 4.0.0 in about a month?
>
>  Andreas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> biojava-dev mailing listbiojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.orghttp://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> biojava-dev mailing list
> biojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biojava-dev/attachments/20141010/09dba72e/attachment.html>