On Fri, Feb 11, 2011, Mark Williamson wrote:
> At this moment in time, the amber11 branch has lost sync with the
> published bugfixes;
Here's my suggestions:
1. get rid of the existing amber11 branch; I don't think anyone is using it
(but speak up!) and it is not reliable for its original intended usage.
2. if people need to see what users have (e.g. for debugging problem reports)
they should do this:
check out the "v_11" tag from git (presumably into a clean directory);
apply the bugfixes from the web page
3. When AmberTools 1.5 is released, we will tag that. (That tag will also
include whatever is on the master branch for amber itself as well, but I don't
see that as a major problem: if you are interested only in AmberTools, just
ignore the rest.
4. Someone could use the procedure in item 2 above to recreate an
amber11-with-patches branch. The periodically repeat it to keep it up to
date. (We should not go back to the current, error-prone method of manually
applying changes to the amber11 branch -- changes there should always come
directly from the web page, so we can be certain that the branch and the web
page are in sync.) But personally, I am not sure the gain is worth the effort
to do this.
Comments are welcome; thanks to Mark and Scott for looking into this.
...dac
--
================================================================
David A. Case | email:
BioMaPS Institute and Dept. of | case.biomaps.rutgers.edu
Chemistry & Chemical Biology | fax: +1-732-445-5958
Rutgers University | phone: +1-732-445-5885
610 Taylor Rd. |
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087 USA | http://casegroup.rutgers.edu
================================================================
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Feb 11 2011 - 07:00:04 PST
