Re: [AMBER-Developers] Amber release names

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:17:04 -0500


On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:45:05AM -0500, Jason Swails wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2015, at 10:52 AM, David A Case <> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015, Gerald Monard wrote:
> >> No odd numbers anymore. It also leaves some
> >> time (until the '16 release) to re-factor the directories and decide if
> >> we drop the AmberTools naming.
> >
> > A couple of points along this thread:
> >
> > 1. We can't merge the AmberTools and Amber source trees together. The
> > split between the AmberTools stuff and the pmemd stuff is there because
> > they fall under different licenses. Intermingling the trees would just
> > confuse that issue.

This does not make sense. pmemd has its own source directory and license
file as do some other programs (and as ~every program once did before
Dave rearranged things years ago):

Please provide a syllogism that explains the split.

> I agree. This is probably one of the more important distinctions we make. For people that just want to *use* Amber, it doesn't *really* matter where the source code lives... all the programs get dumped to the same place, anyway. The people that actually care about the source code directory structure are probably more likely to try modifying it and therefore probably care more about licensing issues.

Yes, this matters to people that actually care about the source code
directory structure - namely, developers.
I have tried and never understood this AmberTools split.
Others also do not understand it.
Consequently, the split continues to appear arbitrary, and all recent
explanations attempts either do not provide a sound argument or are
'well what we have now isnt so broken'.


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Sun Feb 22 2015 - 14:30:03 PST
Custom Search