http://bugzilla.ecoinformatics.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5396
--- Comment #5 from David Welker <[email protected]> 2011-05-24 17:25:13 PDT --- For now, I am proceeding on my understanding that Kepler modules are independent entities and therefore we should not couple Kepler and Ptolemy release cycles. My view is that "ptolemy-8.1" module should be renamed to be "engine-2.2" since Ptolemy is the "engine" upon which Kepler currently runs. This would avoid any confusion about whether Kepler is a way one gets official releases of Ptolemy. I think it would be a mistake to couple Ptolemy and Kepler release cycles, but ultimately this is a leadership team decision regarding the fundamental definition of what Kepler is and what its relationship to Ptolemy is. Is Kepler an independent project or is it a mere extension or subproject of Ptolemy? My understanding has always been that Kepler is an independent project, but some other people may have different views. If we are an independent project, we should not couple Kepler and Ptolemy release cycles or management. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.ecoinformatics.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Kepler-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/kepler/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev
