[Bioperl-l] bioperl-dev or branch?

[Robert Buels]

Mark A. Jensen wrote:
> relatively well-tested functionality. So I do conceive of bioperl-dev 
> (rightly
> or wrongly) as a parallel branch of bioperl-live, but not a temporary
> "feature" branch as such. It can and prob should be pretty persistent.
Branches can be persistent, if there is a really good reason to keep
them as such.  But this instance does not seem to be one of them.

> This is the way I'd love it to work, modulo the exptl core changes 
> mentioned
> above. My own tendency in development is to make stuff as separable as
> possible (by specifically overriding core methods in 'Helper' modules, 
> for example),
> and if this were part of the bioperl-dev rules of engagement (i.e., no 
> core modules,
> only overrides), then users could count on the behavior you describe. 
> Mirroring
> the existing core paths is also key for this expectation.

The problem with trying elaborate ploys to avoid developing on branches
is the 'trying to keep stuff separable' invariably fails in some cases.
  It is far better to rely to on your modern version control system to
sanely manage your changes.  I think you guys are pretty scarred from
years of CVS, a version control system which (by modern standards) is
laughably broken.  SVN is no shining jewel either, but at least it
understands the concept of file trees.

Rob