[Bioc-devel] Attention Bioconductor Maintainers
Gordon K Smyth
smyth at wehi.EDU.AU
Sat May 21 02:57:54 CEST 2005
I agree with you that the distinction between Bioc release and devel can be confusing and needs to
be clarified, but I don't think that this is the way to do it. The trouble with incrementing all
the package numbers is that it breaks the basic principle that version numbers track changes in
packages. It implies to a user that the packages have been changed, when they have not. A user
will not be able to tell whether they should go to the trouble of converting to the devel version
or not. It could even be considered to be a bit dishonest to give the impression that all the
packages have been updated and (by implication) improved when actually they haven't.
Anyway, this isn't a request for special treatment. I think whatever you do you should do to all
the packages, and I'll work-around whatever.
On Sat, May 21, 2005 9:53 am, Seth Falcon said:
> Package version numbers have been "bumped".
> In order to distinguish between the Bioconductor 1.6 release branch
> and the devel version of Bioc packages, I have made the following
> version number change to all packages included in the 1.6 release:
> x.y.z ==> x.y+1.0
> For example, Biobase was released at 1.5.12. It's new devel version
> is 1.6.0. This way, patches on the release branch can continue to
> increment the z number without any confusion with the devel version of
> the package.
> If you strongly object to this change in your package version number,
> please contact me so that we can work out a compromise.
> + seth
More information about the Bioc-devel