Re: [AMBER-Developers] AmberTools Versioning

From: Jason Swails <>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:27:52 -0500

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Daniel Roe <> wrote:

> Hi All,
> I know this subject was discussed somewhat at the developer's meeting
> but I wasn't sure if a consensus had been reached. From the name of
> the AmberTools manual in the GIT repo I assume that AmberTools will be
> version 12 for this release? If that is the case then it seems that
> programs can follow a simple version format:
> 12.<bugfix#>
> where <bugfix#> gets updated whenever a bugfix is written for that
> program, with the number matching the number of the bugfix. I think
> this will really simplify troubleshooting.

> Thoughts?

I like this a lot, but there are considerations. There are too many
programs that have no versioning (e.g. LEaP, antechamber, mdgx) and still
more that have no --version flag (e.g. sqm) or their own versioning
(amberlite, etc.). Also, if people don't strictly adhere to the versioning
requirements as they patch programs (even for 1-liners), this will cause
more confusion than help (and how do we make sure that all would-be
patchers know this?)

There's a function in that would hopefully provide a "better
than nothing" solution to this.

./ --patch-level

will return the patches that have been applied to Amber, and is
automatically updated as patches are applied, so there's no action that
needs to be taken by us.

Dave's email beat mine out the door, so this is kind of just a rehashing of
what he said.

All the best,

Jason M. Swails
Quantum Theory Project,
University of Florida
Ph.D. Candidate
AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Wed Feb 29 2012 - 07:30:02 PST
Custom Search