On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:58 -0500, David A Case wrote:
> Hi everyone:
>
> Here are a few points that came up at the recent developers' meeting:
> (see photos at the Amber web site)
>
> 1. Please visit and update the contributors' page:
> http://ambermd.org/contributors.html
>
> 2. Please update publications in the Reference Manual; add new relevant
> publications. If you don't cite your papers, who will?
>
> 3. We need a good way to refer to the combination "AmberTools15 + Amber14".
> At the meeting, I indicated a preference for just calling this
> "Amber15", but I think that is likely to be quite confusing. Maybe
> there is no shorter name that works, but suggestions are welcome.
Amber 14.5? 2 years from now it can be Amber 16.7? Amber
84317ac3609010bb08ccfeb2893c72a3 (sum of the md5sums of
AmberTools15.tar.bz2 and Amber14.tar.bz2)? [1] :)
Personally I prefer Amber 15. AmberTools has all of the functionality
of Amber, just not its performance. And it isn't like we're treating
Amber 14 as a "bugfix-only" release right now -- it has a lot more
functionality now than it did last April. But I see the case for this
causing confusion.
All the best,
Jason
[1] Just a demo. This is the sum of AmberTools14.tar.bz2 and
Amber14.tar.bz2 for now.
--
Jason M. Swails
BioMaPS,
Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Researcher
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Feb 18 2015 - 11:30:02 PST
