[BioC] Information about the next release (1.4)

[A.J. Rossini]

Greetings, Bioconductor Users!  

We are getting ready for our 5th Bioconductor release (1.4), and the
increase in packages (along with corresponding procedures and methods)
is simply incredible.  The watchword for this release is:

    "Improved Documentation" 

and I hope we can live up to it.   At this point, we are tentatively
looking at a May 4th release date.  We would be greatly assisted if
you have the time to take a look at the packages under development and
make suggestions for improved vignettes and examples by April 10th
(after that, we will still appreciate them, but it starts to become
less likely that they will be incorporated by the release date).

The approximate release plan schedule, relevant for users, is:

    April 12 : FEATURE FREEZE, bug finding and fixing starts.
    May 4    : Proposed release date for Bioconductor 1.4.

=== REVIEWING

If you want to help review packages, the critical components to review
are the vignettes, and your job is to provide positive feedback,
suggestions, and changes which improve the usability of the package.
Everyone can do this, regardless of programming skills and level, and
it is very critical that we start addressing what is perceived as a
critical weakness.  Note that all packages under development require
the pending R 1.9.0 release:

** Bioconductor 1.3 is meant for R 1.8.1 and 
** Bioconductor 1.4 is intended for the R 1.9.x series!

(you do NOT want to mix and match, you might end up with a
dysfunctional data analysis environment!)


What to look for:

  1) Does the package have any vignettes? Do the vignettes describe
  the sorts of activities that the package authors intend. Can they
  be improved?  

  2) Documentation: is the per function documentation readable and
  complete?  Can it be understood by non-experts.  

  3) Integration: does the package fit well within the project. Do
  the authors use available meta-data resources, visualization tools
  etc (where appropriate).


(acknowledgements to Robert G. for the above list).

For the above, I think providing the actual suggested changes for #1
and #2 are critical to assist the package author. External commentary
is always useful for these.  While actual code modifications would be
good for #3, it is just as important to propose where the changes
should be made.  

If you decide to review, the primary person to contact is the package
MAINTAINER (who can be different from the actual author).  When you
send a review back to the author, please CC' Tony
(mailto:rossini at u.washington.edu) and/or Jeff
(mailto:jgentry at jimmy.harvard.edu) so that we can be kept in the loop
and assist maintainers during this process.


Thanks in advance!

best,
-tony

-- 
rossini at u.washington.edu            http://www.analytics.washington.edu/ 
Biomedical and Health Informatics   University of Washington
Biostatistics, SCHARP/HVTN          Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
UW (Tu/Th/F): 206-616-7630 FAX=206-543-3461 | Voicemail is unreliable
FHCRC  (M/W): 206-667-7025 FAX=206-667-4812 | use Email

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachme...{{dropped}}