On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Henrik Bengtsson <hb@biostat.ucsf.edu>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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'?
>
>
I've been confused by this in the past (like yesterday), so it would be
better to be consistent, I agree.


> 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.
>
>
If we did change the versioning scheme of the project, then it would
definitely make sense to have BiocInstaller track it.


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

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

