I can only encourage you to keep track of the most significant changes
in your package in its NEWS file, especially if its history is a little
bit complicated as it seems to be the case here. Briefly explaining the
motivations behind those changes is a good idea.
Cheers,
H.
On 06/11/2018 08:47
OK...1.98.0 and 1.99.0 sounds good. Shall do that.
Is it necessary to convey the reasons for the change e.g. NEWS file ?
That's my last question...I hope !
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018, Hervé Pagès wrote:
> Ah ok. Yes 1.99.0 is fine. Then the package will be released as 2.0.0
> in Fall as part of
Ah ok. Yes 1.99.0 is fine. Then the package will be released as 2.0.0
in Fall as part of BioC 3.8.
Not that version numbers have a strong meaning but I was thinking that
maybe you could bump to 1.98.0 in release to sort of indicate the fact
that the package in release is the precursor of what's
Thanks, I shall do that. Its OK to keep the master as 1.99.0 ? It should
probably have been 1.19.1 ?
On Monday, June 11, 2018, Hervé Pagès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Having a package that is known to be broken in release is not
> really an option.
>
> How about replacing all the files in the RELEASE_3_7
Hi,
Having a package that is known to be broken in release is not
really an option.
How about replacing all the files in the RELEASE_3_7 branch
with what's in the master branch. For the version, just bump
z (in x.y.z) to its next version. Don't touch x or y. So the
version would become 1.18.1
Hi,
I am maintainer of package ASSET. We have recently discovered some issues
(most importantly computational speed issues) with recent versions of our
package and wanted to revert the code to an older version ASSET v 1.8.0
present in Bioconductor release 3.2, before proceeding to make further
Hi Samsiddhi,
Yes, you can do that. Make sure to bump the version even in the RELEASE_3_7
branch if you decide to take that option.
Best,
Nitesh
P.S: I’m moving this thread to bioc-devel because it’s useful to the community.
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 11:59 AM, Samsiddhi Bhattacharjee wrote:
