Re: [IMP-dev] design discussions
> > hi, >> >> I think that it would be much more productive to have discussion on major >> design changes in IMP meeting and not via emails. >> It would be preferable to raise issues in an email before the meeting and >> write an email with conclusions after the meeting. >> > > > Yes. Also, and perhaps more importantly, now IMP is at a level of maturity > when it is used by many people in the lab, so changes in it affect others. I > think that major changes and philosophical view should be discussed previous > implementation or changed. They "already done" things show a big tendency to > stay that way even if they could be improved. > >
yes! another good point, changes affect others! especially when the logic is changed...
2009/10/8 Javier Ángel Velázquez Muriel javi@salilab.org: >>> hi, >>> >>> I think that it would be much more productive to have discussion on major >>> design changes in IMP meeting and not via emails. >>> It would be preferable to raise issues in an email before the meeting and >>> write an email with conclusions after the meeting. >> >> >> Yes. Also, and perhaps more importantly, now IMP is at a level of maturity >> when it is used by many people in the lab, so changes in it affect others. I >> think that major changes and philosophical view should be discussed previous >> implementation or changed. They "already done" things show a big tendency to >> stay that way even if they could be improved. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > >
On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Dina Schneidman wrote:
> yes! another good point, changes affect others! especially when the > logic is changed... > Definitely. Although in this case there was no previously specified logic...
2009/10/8 Daniel Russel drussel@gmail.com
> > On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Dina Schneidman wrote: > > yes! another good point, changes affect others! especially when the >> logic is changed... >> >> Definitely. Although in this case there was no previously specified > logic... >
I disagree. The point was raised many times and never discussed.
On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Javier Ángel Velázquez Muriel wrote:
> > > 2009/10/8 Daniel Russel drussel@gmail.com > > On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Dina Schneidman wrote: > > yes! another good point, changes affect others! especially when the > logic is changed... > > Definitely. Although in this case there was no previously specified > logic... > > I disagree. The point was raised many times and never discussed. That is what I mean: while it came up, we never specified a solution (and never implemented one). The docs for the read pdb function only talked about the lower parts of the hierarchy and left the details we are currently discussing unspecified.
time to sleep :) lets continue in IMP meeting
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Daniel Russel drussel@gmail.com wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Javier Ángel Velázquez Muriel wrote: > > > 2009/10/8 Daniel Russel drussel@gmail.com >> >> On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Dina Schneidman wrote: >> >>> yes! another good point, changes affect others! especially when the >>> logic is changed... >>> >> Definitely. Although in this case there was no previously specified >> logic... > > I disagree. The point was raised many times and never discussed. > > That is what I mean: while it came up, we never specified a solution (and > never implemented one). The docs for the read pdb function only talked about > the lower parts of the hierarchy and left the details we are currently > discussing unspecified. > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > >
participants (3)
-
Daniel Russel -
Dina Schneidman -
Javier Ángel Velázquez Muriel