On Mon, Jul 02, 2012, Jason Swails wrote:
>
> This is the exact proposal. I'm making the tarball tonight (along with the
> quick fix to configure, to be released as bugfix.13).
>
> My only point of concern is whether we name the new tarball
> AmberTools12.13.tar.bz2 or AmberTools12.tar.bz2 (either way, it will be
> identical to *original* AmberTools12 + bugfix.1-13, and ./patch_amber.py
> --patch-level will correctly reflect the patch state).
>
> The worry with adding the 13 is that users may mistakenly think they need
> to update (is this even a problem?). The worry about not adding the 13 is
> that then the download is silently changed (again, is this a problem?).
Let's not change the name.
>
> Maybe we take the time to update the manual in the doc directory (and the
> > one on the website) with the errata while we are at it?
Go ahead and use the AmberTools12.pdf file that is in the master branch...I
think everything there is OK. It's possible that a bit of the cpptraj stuff
only refers to post-Amber12 changes, but I don't think that will cause
problems. [I fixed the "--" problem in the patch_amber.py documentation.]
> I agree with this, but Dave may want to weigh in here with the implications
> with Lulu and the published version...
We'll just have Lulu a bit out of sync...very few people seem to want the
bound versions anyway.
...thx...dave
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon Jul 02 2012 - 14:00:02 PDT
