Bb-utils

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bb-utils

Weigang Qiu-2
Dear BioPerl developers,

I intend to share & (eventually) publish a suite of bioperl-based command-line utilities my lab has developed & found very useful in the past 10 years:

http://diverge.hunter.cuny.edu/labwiki/Bioutils

Hilmar encouraged me to get some feedback & advice from the bioperl-L on how to package and release it properly.

My specific questions are:

1. While it goes naturally with bioperl releases, but I would like it to be more exposed than hidden inside the bp-scripts folder. Do you think these utilities are useful enough to be housed in a separate folder (e.g., "bputils") by itself? I have a developer's account but I haven't commit anything for years.

2. How to make it sustainable (and attract new developers) since we are constantly revising and adding methods. It would be great if become a part of bioperl-live.

Any advice and facilitation will be appreciated!

Thanks,
--
Weigang Qiu, Ph.D.
Department of Biological Sciences
Hunter College of the City University of New York
695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10065
Office: 1-212-772-5296 (Room 839 Hunter North Building)
Lab: 1-212-772-5721 (Room 830 Hunter North Building)
Web:http://diverge.hunter.cuny.edu/labwiki/


_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Fields, Christopher J
Hi Weigang,

I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a git submodule and packaging it up.

chris

On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear BioPerl developers,

I intend to share & (eventually) publish a suite of bioperl-based command-line utilities my lab has developed & found very useful in the past 10 years:

http://diverge.hunter.cuny.edu/labwiki/Bioutils

Hilmar encouraged me to get some feedback & advice from the bioperl-L on how to package and release it properly.

My specific questions are:

1. While it goes naturally with bioperl releases, but I would like it to be more exposed than hidden inside the bp-scripts folder. Do you think these utilities are useful enough to be housed in a separate folder (e.g., "bputils") by itself? I have a developer's account but I haven't commit anything for years.

2. How to make it sustainable (and attract new developers) since we are constantly revising and adding methods. It would be great if become a part of bioperl-live.

Any advice and facilitation will be appreciated!

Thanks,
--
Weigang Qiu, Ph.D.
Department of Biological Sciences
Hunter College of the City University of New York
695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10065
Office: 1-212-772-5296 (Room 839 Hunter North Building)
Lab: 1-212-772-5721 (Room 830 Hunter North Building)
Web:http://diverge.hunter.cuny.edu/labwiki/

_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l


_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

George Hartzell-2
Fields, Christopher J writes:
 > Hi Weigang,
 >
 > I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
 > in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
 > tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
 > exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
 > bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
 > the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
 > git submodule and packaging it up.
 > [...]

Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.

Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
(correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).

Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).

Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)

g.
_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Fields, Christopher J
On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up.
>> [...]
>
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
>
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
>
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
>
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
>
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris
_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Weigang Qiu-2
Hi, George, Chris, and Cacau:

That's my question as well: these are bp wrappers and utility scripts, not APIs that fits into CPAN naturally. I have an informal source-forge repository for bp-utils, but not quite ready for form formal release.

My intention of having it somehow housed within bioperl is not only for exposure and attracting usage and development, but also to pay proper tribute to you guys' hard work maintaining and developing bioperl.

I appreciate the suggestion of having its own name space. If approved, I (and my lab members) will make sure it doesn't not fall into poor maintenance and being an orphan. Having a wiki presence may be a good first step to gradually and properly roll it out?

thanks,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up.
>> [...]
>
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
>
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
>
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
>
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
>
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris



--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
1-917-678-3301

_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Fields, Christopher J
It’s ‘approved' :)

Easy enough to set up a repo within the bioperl space for this and grant permissions to whomever (just need a github account).  We just need a name for the repo.  

We can also set up a wiki presence on http://bioperl.org, but we’ve been discussing (off-list) using the GitHub wiki (or readthedocs) and setting up a GitHub Pages portal for projects:


This might may be a good place to start such an initiative.

chris

On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, George, Chris, and Cacau:

That's my question as well: these are bp wrappers and utility scripts, not APIs that fits into CPAN naturally. I have an informal source-forge repository for bp-utils, but not quite ready for form formal release.

My intention of having it somehow housed within bioperl is not only for exposure and attracting usage and development, but also to pay proper tribute to you guys' hard work maintaining and developing bioperl.

I appreciate the suggestion of having its own name space. If approved, I (and my lab members) will make sure it doesn't not fall into poor maintenance and being an orphan. Having a wiki presence may be a good first step to gradually and properly roll it out?

thanks,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up.
>> [...]
>
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
>
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
>
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
>
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
>
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris



--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
1-917-678-3301


_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Weigang Qiu-2
Pablo, Chris, and George,

I'm glad to know that there are other similar ongoing efforts & this may grow into a joint project. (I agree that many commonly-used methods are better refactored back into API.)

Thanks for the ideas and support. It would be great if some of you could set up a broadly themed, developer-enticing repo ("bputils", "bioutils", "user-supplied utilities", "workflow tools", ?) and wiki page under bioperl so we could proceed to fill the content.

Thanks & best,

weigang

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s ‘approved' :)

Easy enough to set up a repo within the bioperl space for this and grant permissions to whomever (just need a github account).  We just need a name for the repo.  

We can also set up a wiki presence on http://bioperl.org, but we’ve been discussing (off-list) using the GitHub wiki (or readthedocs) and setting up a GitHub Pages portal for projects:


This might may be a good place to start such an initiative.

chris

On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, George, Chris, and Cacau:

That's my question as well: these are bp wrappers and utility scripts, not APIs that fits into CPAN naturally. I have an informal source-forge repository for bp-utils, but not quite ready for form formal release.

My intention of having it somehow housed within bioperl is not only for exposure and attracting usage and development, but also to pay proper tribute to you guys' hard work maintaining and developing bioperl.

I appreciate the suggestion of having its own name space. If approved, I (and my lab members) will make sure it doesn't not fall into poor maintenance and being an orphan. Having a wiki presence may be a good first step to gradually and properly roll it out?

thanks,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up.
>> [...]
>
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
>
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
>
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
>
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
>
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris



--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="+19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301




--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="+19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301

_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Fields, Christopher J
Weigang,

Probably will be named ‘bp-utils’, though this can be changed:


Just to make sure, what is your Github ID (along with anyone else from your lab contributing to it)?  I can add a team for that repo.

chris

On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pablo, Chris, and George,

I'm glad to know that there are other similar ongoing efforts & this may grow into a joint project. (I agree that many commonly-used methods are better refactored back into API.)

Thanks for the ideas and support. It would be great if some of you could set up a broadly themed, developer-enticing repo ("bputils", "bioutils", "user-supplied utilities", "workflow tools", ?) and wiki page under bioperl so we could proceed to fill the content.

Thanks & best,

weigang

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s ‘approved' :)

Easy enough to set up a repo within the bioperl space for this and grant permissions to whomever (just need a github account).  We just need a name for the repo.  

We can also set up a wiki presence on http://bioperl.org, but we’ve been discussing (off-list) using the GitHub wiki (or readthedocs) and setting up a GitHub Pages portal for projects:


This might may be a good place to start such an initiative.

chris

On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, George, Chris, and Cacau:

That's my question as well: these are bp wrappers and utility scripts, not APIs that fits into CPAN naturally. I have an informal source-forge repository for bp-utils, but not quite ready for form formal release.

My intention of having it somehow housed within bioperl is not only for exposure and attracting usage and development, but also to pay proper tribute to you guys' hard work maintaining and developing bioperl.

I appreciate the suggestion of having its own name space. If approved, I (and my lab members) will make sure it doesn't not fall into poor maintenance and being an orphan. Having a wiki presence may be a good first step to gradually and properly roll it out?

thanks,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up.
>> [...]
>
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
>
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
>
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
>
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
>
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris



--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="&#43;19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301




--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="&#43;19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301


_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Weigang Qiu-2
Hi, Chris,

I just signed up for github with the username "weigangq". One of my team member is Girish Ramrattan <[hidden email]> with the username "gramratt3"

thanks for your facilitation,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
Weigang,

Probably will be named ‘bp-utils’, though this can be changed:


Just to make sure, what is your Github ID (along with anyone else from your lab contributing to it)?  I can add a team for that repo.

chris

On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pablo, Chris, and George,

I'm glad to know that there are other similar ongoing efforts & this may grow into a joint project. (I agree that many commonly-used methods are better refactored back into API.)

Thanks for the ideas and support. It would be great if some of you could set up a broadly themed, developer-enticing repo ("bputils", "bioutils", "user-supplied utilities", "workflow tools", ?) and wiki page under bioperl so we could proceed to fill the content.

Thanks & best,

weigang

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s ‘approved' :)

Easy enough to set up a repo within the bioperl space for this and grant permissions to whomever (just need a github account).  We just need a name for the repo.  

We can also set up a wiki presence on http://bioperl.org, but we’ve been discussing (off-list) using the GitHub wiki (or readthedocs) and setting up a GitHub Pages portal for projects:


This might may be a good place to start such an initiative.

chris

On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, George, Chris, and Cacau:

That's my question as well: these are bp wrappers and utility scripts, not APIs that fits into CPAN naturally. I have an informal source-forge repository for bp-utils, but not quite ready for form formal release.

My intention of having it somehow housed within bioperl is not only for exposure and attracting usage and development, but also to pay proper tribute to you guys' hard work maintaining and developing bioperl.

I appreciate the suggestion of having its own name space. If approved, I (and my lab members) will make sure it doesn't not fall into poor maintenance and being an orphan. Having a wiki presence may be a good first step to gradually and properly roll it out?

thanks,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up.
>> [...]
>
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
>
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
>
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
>
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
>
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris



--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="+19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301




--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="+19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301




--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
1-917-678-3301

_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bb-utils

Fields, Christopher J
Weigang,

Added these in. You can follow the directions on the github repo link to push up the repository whenever you’re ready (you should have full admin on that repo).

chris

On Dec 15, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Chris,

I just signed up for github with the username "weigangq". One of my team member is Girish Ramrattan <[hidden email]> with the username "gramratt3"

thanks for your facilitation,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
Weigang,

Probably will be named ‘bp-utils’, though this can be changed:


Just to make sure, what is your Github ID (along with anyone else from your lab contributing to it)?  I can add a team for that repo.

chris

On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pablo, Chris, and George,

I'm glad to know that there are other similar ongoing efforts & this may grow into a joint project. (I agree that many commonly-used methods are better refactored back into API.)

Thanks for the ideas and support. It would be great if some of you could set up a broadly themed, developer-enticing repo ("bputils", "bioutils", "user-supplied utilities", "workflow tools", ?) and wiki page under bioperl so we could proceed to fill the content.

Thanks & best,

weigang

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
It’s ‘approved' :)

Easy enough to set up a repo within the bioperl space for this and grant permissions to whomever (just need a github account).  We just need a name for the repo.  

We can also set up a wiki presence on http://bioperl.org, but we’ve been discussing (off-list) using the GitHub wiki (or readthedocs) and setting up a GitHub Pages portal for projects:


This might may be a good place to start such an initiative.

chris

On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Weigang Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, George, Chris, and Cacau:

That's my question as well: these are bp wrappers and utility scripts, not APIs that fits into CPAN naturally. I have an informal source-forge repository for bp-utils, but not quite ready for form formal release.

My intention of having it somehow housed within bioperl is not only for exposure and attracting usage and development, but also to pay proper tribute to you guys' hard work maintaining and developing bioperl.

I appreciate the suggestion of having its own name space. If approved, I (and my lab members) will make sure it doesn't not fall into poor maintenance and being an orphan. Having a wiki presence may be a good first step to gradually and properly roll it out?

thanks,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Fields, Christopher J <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up.
>> [...]
>
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
>
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
>
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
>
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
>
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris



--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="&#43;19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301




--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
<a href="tel:1-917-678-3301" value="&#43;19176783301" target="_blank">1-917-678-3301




--
Weigang Qiu (邱伟刚)
117-14 Union Turnpike
AC3
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
1-917-678-3301


_______________________________________________
Bioperl-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l