On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 02:08:10PM -0500, Jason Swails wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:58 -0500, David A Case wrote:
> > Here are a few points that came up at the recent developers' meeting:
> >
> > 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] :)
> [1] Just a demo. This is the sum of AmberTools14.tar.bz2 and
> Amber14.tar.bz2 for now.
>
> 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.
I also prefer Amber 15. There is and always was just one Amber software
suite even though for a while it came in two parts with different names.
As i understand it, the bifurcation was an attempt to deal with
licensing issues. I don't understand how those issues have changed, but
we must pay another price of user confusion to get back to normality.
scott
ps for historical context see (as well as other temporally close threads):
http://dev-archive.ambermd.org/201111/0036.html
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Feb 18 2015 - 13:30:03 PST
