On Thu, Nov 03, 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
>
> and I still maintain that AMBER 12 should be a
> complete package and we break out the free sections for download later
I will note that this proposal was discussed and turned down at previous
developers' meetings. As usual, Jason has pointed up its main drawback
before I got around to it, but in my words:
After an update of AmberTools, we then have two versions of everything
except sander and pmemd (or, everything except pmemd). Maybe there is some
clever versioning scheme that can keep it straight, but at what price?
I suspect (and hope!) that most users will upgrade when an improved version of
AmberTools is released, so very little is gained by having Amber12 be a
"complete package" (i.e., it becomes a "complete but outdated package").
But we would still be kind of obligated to support the "official Amber12"
package for two full years.
In addition, I think users are by now quite used to the current setup,
where AmberTools is open source and Amber isn't. (This also avoids confusion
about what license goes with what code.)
[Note that I think we are committed to the notion that future upgrades to
AmberTools must be compatible with the latest release of Amber itself.
Exactly how we do this depends on what we decide to do about sander, which
is still under discussion.]
....dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Thu Nov 03 2011 - 19:30:04 PDT
