[Biopython-dev] biopython on github

[Tiago Antão]

Hi,

> I'm not quite sure what you mean by agressively controlled.  Moving to
> a DVCS really should make public experimental branches much easier.


I mean that the official release is a very controlled (a good thing!).
Development branches should be more free.

> That is a risk - especially if anyone were to go off and work in
> complete isolation without even posting anything to this mailing list.

I think our obligation is to inform people of the issue. If then
people go away and don't communicate, then it becomes their problem. I
think just a couple of sentences on the Contributing page on the wiki
would be more than enough.


> That could work - although having anyone as a single bottle neck is a
> risk, assuming you get someone to agree to the role in the first place
> ;)  I am generally happy with the current arrangement where module
> owners have a degree of autonomy over their modules.  I wouldn't want
> to have to approve every single minor change you (Tiago) make to
> Bio.PopGen - but I suppose occasional review and merging of code from
> Tiago's branch on request wouldn't be too onerous.

I agree. I am just trying to make this "explicit" policy. So that
everybody knows the rules of the game. If people dont agree than that
should be discussed and changed. But the point is, these kind of
management issues should be written down somewhere in a transparent
way.


>> B. The official version has a lot of quality enforcement on top.
>
> What does that mean?  e.g. a strict policy about unit tests before
> anything goes into the main branch?

I was reading  http://biopython.org/wiki/Contributing and the main
stuff is already there (the "submitting code" place).
But the point is: the official version should be stable and reliable
(as it is now, IMHO)


>> E. Maybe some contact points should be defined for modules?
>
> Do you mean something more explicit about documenting who currently
> maintains each module?

That is my point. Makes any sense?