Re: [Cdk-user] CDK III paper: software using CDK 1.4 or 1.5?

Somehow parts of my previous mail are not shown correctly here is a plan text version: Hi, Scaffold Hunter also has a more recent Publication: Visual Analysis of Biological Activity Data with Scaffold Hunter Karsten Klein, Oliver Koch, Nils Kriege, Petra Mutzel, Till Schäfer Molecular

[Cdk-user] Complex Molecule Rendering

Hi, We have a molecule that does not appear to render properly - Tetrakis(acetonitrile)copper(I) hexafluorophosphate. Canonical SMILES: [Cu+].CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.F[P-](F)(F)(F)(F)F The correct rendering is something like this: [image: Inline image 1] But we're getting this. [image: Inline

Re: [Cdk-user] Complex Molecule Rendering

Dear Steve, On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Steve Roy wrote: > [Cu+].CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.F[P-](F)(F)(F)(F)F > with the latest CDK version (1.5.x) I get something that more resembles what you expect:

Re: [Cdk-user] CDK III paper: software using CDK 1.4 or 1.5?

Hi, Scaffold Hunter also has a more recent Publication: *Visual Analysis of Biological Activity Data with Scaffold Hunter* Regards, Till Am Donnerstag, 11. August 2016, 09:50:17 schrieb Egon Willighagen: > Hi all, > > I am finishing up a third CDK paper, which you can find the LaTeX >

Re: [Cdk-user] Project Versioning

Hi >From the perspective of a user, I prefer the {major}.{minor}.{maintenance} versioning system. It also matches the numbering system other applications are using. Emilio On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Rajarshi Guha wrote: > I like the major.minor form because it's

[Cdk-user] Project Versioning

This has come up before, but wanted to hear from users. Currently the project versioning system is 1.{odd/even}.{number} where by 1 is fixed for now, odd/even for stability (e.g. 1.4.x stable, 1.5.x unstable), the last number just increments. This system hints that 1.4 is the preferred version as

Re: [Cdk-user] Project Versioning

I like the major.minor form because it's closer to what is happening in terms of code changes. On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:27 AM, John M wrote: > This has come up before, but wanted to hear from users. > > Currently the project versioning system is