[Bioc-devel] name for new BioC package

[Laurent Gatto]

Dear Matteo,

Not a direct answer to your question, but here's another angle to it, from a software development perspective.

Once Moonlight2R will be available, would you consider MoonlightR to still be a viable alternative? If not, then you should also plan the deprecation of MoonlightR. In that case, the new code base could be added to MoonlightR (with a major version bump) and you could add a deprecation warning to the old code (see ?deprecated) that would become defunct (and removed) 6 month later.

As for authors, all can be added to the DESCRIPTION file, with details about respective contributions in the manual pages.

Best wishes,

Laurent


________________________________________
From: Bioc-devel <bioc-devel-bounces using r-project.org> on behalf of Matteo Tiberti <tiberti using cancer.dk>
Sent: 03 February 2023 09:08
To: bioc-devel using r-project.org
Subject: [Bioc-devel] name for new BioC package

dear maintainers,

I am currently listed as maintainer of Bioconductor package MoonlightR, designed for the prediction of cancer driver genes, which implements the Moonlight workflow.

We are currently working on a second version of our workflow, called Moonlight2, and would like to have it released on Bioconductor as well, in form of the Moonlight2R package. The new package uses similar principles as the current one, but will have significant changes and updates, both in terms of new functionality and revision of old functionalities. The Moonlight2R project/paper will also have in part a different corresponding authorship respect to the current one. MoonlightR and Moonlight2R currently reside in two separate GitHub repositories.

Ideally we would like to have both packages on BioConductor for the moment, the old one (called MoonlightR) and the new one that we intend to submit before the April cut-off for 3.17 (called Moonlight2R), where the number signifies the version of the protocol rather than the software. However on the package submission list, I see that having package names that "imply a temporal relationship" respect to an existing package is discouraged. Given the circumstances, do you think it would be possible to use the Moonlight2R name for the package (i.e. would it be a reason for rejection or object of revision during submission) or is it fair to keep it as is?

Many thanks

Matteo Tiberti

Danish Cancer Society Research Center
Strandboulevarden 49
DK-2100 Copenhagen
Telephone: +45 35 25 73 07


[https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/K116/d1.png]<https://www.cancer.dk/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=medarbejderemail&utm_campaign=medarbejderemail&utm_content=cancerdk>

www.cancer.dk<https://www.cancer.dk/international/> | Vores privatlivspolitik<https://www.cancer.dk/om-os/privatlivspolitik/>


        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

_______________________________________________
Bioc-devel using r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel