On Thu, Nov 03, 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
> What I am suggesting is the following: [outline of a scheme where Amber12
is a "complete package"...]
Ross: my concern is that you never address the disadvantages of this scheme,
which for convenience and emphasis I copy from my last email:
> > After an update of AmberTools, we then have two versions of everything.
What would we ship to people who buy Amber12 *after* a staggered update
of AmberTools?
> > We would still be kind of obligated to support the "official
Amber12" package for two full years.
> Many many people have asked me why we don't just have a single unified
> build and test system.
This is useful information. I handle all the license correspondence, and have
never had anyone comment or complain about this issue. But we can easily
have a single unified build and test system, with smart Makefiles that detect
what is there. That is a separate issue from the question of whether we
offer a "complete Amber12 package" with "blessed" versions of AmberTools.
In the end, maybe this just comes down to whether users download one tarball
or two. Maybe we should be thinking more creatively about how get money
coming in for Amber, and still be able to upgrade all components (including
pmemd) in a way that is (a) less clunky than bugfix.17; (b) doesn't destroy
people's incentive to pay us again when Amber13 comes out.
....dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Nov 04 2011 - 07:00:04 PDT
