[Biopython-dev] Rolling new releases

[Peter Cock]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Michiel de Hoon <mjldehoon at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
>> Again, building the docs is pretty trivial.  We have in the
>> past deliberately NOT updated the online copies, so that it is
>> in sync with the latest release.  I suppose we could have two
>> copies on the website, the "latest release" and the
>> "nightly code".
>
> That would be nice. In the past, I've done such things by hand to
> let people look at the documentation for a piece of code that's
> about to go into CVS.
>

This should be trivial to get setup - at least as long as our
repository lives on the OBF server.  There are already scripts or CVS
hooks in place to update http://biopython.org/SRC/ although I don't
know how exactly this is configured.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Michiel de Hoon <mjldehoon at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brad wrote:
>>> - Eliminating the beta releases. Biopython is developed as
>>> stable in Git/CVS, so gets testing that way on developer
>>> machines. Are we getting enough feedback from betas to make
>>> them worthwhile?
>
> I agree. A project like Biopython is destined to be in perpetual beta
> mode anyway. To my mind, Biopython 1.50-beta is as stable as
> Biopython 1.49 and Biopython 1.51. In addition, will we be able to
> remember that Biopython 1.50b is the beta release of version 1.50
> (or did we have a 1.50, then a 1.50a, and then a 1.50b release?).

Maybe I have hung about with computer scientists / programmers too
long, as to me there is no confusion about the ordering alpha -> beta
-> release candidate -> final.

However, if the consensus is that explicit beta releases are
redundant, then so be it.

Peter