[Biopython-dev] biopython on github

[Tiago Antão]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Peter <biopython at maubp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I think it is essential we have a clearly labeled official trunk
> (perhaps with branches for releases), which will be used for all the
> official releases (tar balls, zip files and windows installers).  Our
> main webpage should make this very clear.

I agree.

I would like to take this opportunity just to make my opinion clear (I
normally tend to list hipothesis and refrain to give my own opinions).

1. I don't think there is a pressing need to go from CVS to whatever.
While CVS is not perfect I don't think it has been a big hurdle. But
if people want to go in that direction, I have no strong feelings
against it also.
2. The hurdle was that _policy_ was too conservative: Some time ago it
was not acceptable even to consider a development branch. That
stiffles things (although it ensures stability which is good).
Fortunately things are more negotiatable now. The point is: the main
issues are policy, not technology.
3. Like it or not, different mechanisms (ie centralized versus
distributed VCSs) facilitate different policies. Distributed version
control facilitates branching to a massive degree.
4. I think a middle ground is a good idea: While there is an official
distribution (eg that one that is labelled biopython 1.50 and that
will end up on most users computers) which is agressively controled,
there should be space for people to try out new things.
5. People that try out new things should be aware (to avoid
disappointment) that their new code might not be accepted, for many
reasons on the official trunk: not enough documentation, no test
cases, design not acceptable, poorly-commented code, whatever. It
would be very sad that people would start working on something, spend
lots of time on their branch just to see their code refused to be on
the "official" trunk.

So, in my view things work like this:
A. The "official" version on biopython.org is controlled by a "head
honcho", currently Peter with input from biopython-dev. This is the
version that most users will ever see in practice.
B. The official version has a lot of quality enforcement on top.
C. People should be free to branch away and try new things.
D. People that branch away should be aware that their stuff might not
be accepted on the official distribution. If they want it accepted
they should come to biopython-dev and have a cup of tea with the
community.
E. Maybe some contact points should be defined for modules?
F. People who want their code included in the "official" distribution
should seriously think in branching from the "official" branch and not
from any other.

I would really like to see an "official" git branch which should be
created, in my opinion from a stable release and either by Peter or
Michiel (or any other long term CVS-write user). In my case I would
branch to maintain some of the PopGen code.


Tiago