So I suppose I should chime in on some of this stuff. I'd be willing to help with ghemical as much as possible, but it is still kinda at the will of my funding as to what i'm working on. as of right now most of it has been ghemical with regards to gamess, but i can easily see this work forcusing on openbabel updates in the near future (all towards gamess again) but it's not to say i don't want/won't have ideas and extensions to ghemical also. But be assured, i'm not running and gunning on changes, running them by the devel group is within my best interests. as far as versioning, I should say this. when 2.0 (VERSION_2_BRANCH) is released, it's released, we leave the branch, but all development should focus on 3.0 (HEAD). branches should be primarily for bug fixes. if 2.0 isn't done then lets get it done (easier said than done). and in fact, if it isn't done, then there is no reason there should BE a HEAD. it seems like jumping the gun and splitting our efforts between developing for VERSION_2_BRANCH _and_ HEAD is working at half efficiency. (saying this, i haven't looked at HEAD yet, i'll do that later today). Geoff is right though, the easiest thing would be to say what goals we have, what that will require and what branch it should go into. any chance ghemical will move to SVN sometime? it's pretty CVS friendly and it's SO much nicer. don't take what i say too forcefull, trying to be quick and concise can sound pretty rough when opinions start to fly. -Donald Geoffrey Hutchison wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Tommi Hassinen wrote: > >> So, my idea is that you could freely do the changes you like to the >> VERSION_2_BRANCH, and then we release it as v2.0 when you think it's >> ready. I'm focusing on HEAD version, and try to do tasks that help us >> longer term. Since VERSION_2_BRANCH and HEAD look the same from the >> user's perspective, we can later release HEAD as v2.10 or v2.20 when >> the time is right. > > > Well, I'm certainly willing to "take over" for v2.0. If Donald would > like to join me, great! > > One thing I'd like to do is make a VERSION_2_BRANCH for libghemical > too. I know Tommi assures me that libghemical HEAD won't break things, > but I think it's safer and can let Tommi and others change libghemical > HEAD without worrying about breaking things. > > I'd also like to suggest that we add Donald as a member of the project > at bioinformatics.org so that he has CVS write access -- he won't have > to constantly send patches to the list. :-) > >> Let's just solve the issues like Å/nm and configuration dialog so >> that the version jump would be as small as possible. > > > I don't think a version jump matters much. Many users seem to think > 1.0x is the current release, so I personally don't think it matters > whether HEAD becomes 2.1 or 3.0 or Ghemical MegaServer 2008. (Ha!) > > What I think is important is that we have some longer-term plans, think > about what sorts of changes we'd like to make, and if needed to make > branches before any sort of huge source changes. After all, the next > few releases are likely to come from the VERSION_2_BRANCH, e.g. 2.0.0, > 2.0.1... > > Cheers, > -Geoff