[Bioc-devel] SUGGESTION: BioC version (e.g. 2.13) to also follow the x.y(.z) version scheme of Bioc packages

Henrik Bengtsson hb at biostat.ucsf.edu
Wed Oct 16 20:11:57 CEST 2013


the new Bioconductor 2.13 release, aka "BioC 2.13", is out.  Previous
release was 2.12 and before that 2.11 and so on.  Have you considered
to follow the x.y(.z) version scheme of BioC packages
[http://bioconductor.org/developers/package-guidelines/#versions] for
this too, i.e. letting the stable/release version to always have an
even 'y' in x.y, and the devel version to always have an odd 'y'?

Also, The Biobase package is directly or indirectly used by many of
the Bioconductor packages.  This would make it a natural candidate for
have a version number that reflects the BioC version, i.e. when the
Biobase package gets version 3.0.z in release BioC 3.0, while it gets
version 3.1.z in devel BioC 3.1.   That would provide a natural way to
specify that a package depends on a certain BioC version (e.g. Biobase
(>= 3.0.0)), at least for those packages directly depending on
Biobase.  Of course, an alternative would be to have dummy package
BioC for just this purpose.  BTW, it would also make sense if the
BioCInstaller package version would reflect the BioC version.  All
this would be possible if BioC itself followed the same version schema
as the packages.


More information about the Bioc-devel mailing list