Re: [IMP-dev] Shall we declare it a release?

[Ben Webb <>]

On 4/20/13 2:36 AM, Yannick Spill wrote:
> I think if we are to do a 2.0 release, let's try to have one without
> compile warnings.

I agree with Daniel that it could take forever to get to a release if we 
insist on that. (If you really want to spend your time on cosmetic 
cleanups before a release, the isd module examples don't work. The 
typical user is much more likely to notice that than some random compile 
warnings, which most people have been conditioned to ignore anyway. 
Almost all of the test failures right now are in isd too, but that's 
less important. But if I had to choose between fixing tests and fixing 
compile warnings, I'd fix tests, since those are what should be telling 
you if you screwed up something when you tried to fix the compile warnings!)

> By the way, how do you want to do this naming?
> 2.0 for a major release
> 2.0.x++ for a hotfix
> 2.1 for the next release, in 6 months
> what do you think?

I thought we'd already agreed on exactly that, but if not, that sounds 
reasonable. ;)

	Ben
--
                      http://salilab.org/~ben/
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."
	- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle