On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM, David A Case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu>wrote:
> 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.
>
We got several :). I hate having to hunt through the PDFs for stuff...
My other email can be ignored, the answer is in here.
Thanks!
Jason
--
Jason M. Swails
Quantum Theory Project,
University of Florida
Ph.D. Candidate
352-392-4032
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon Jul 02 2012 - 14:00:03 PDT
