Re: Biopython 1.69 plans - late January / early February?
Peter Cock <[email protected]> Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:51:54 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.bio.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKVJ-_4RaK-Wb+EpOBusj9jMTJSN4OHeVQcGygCPEdOg6deU5Q@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Peter Cock <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I had hoped to make time for this before Christmas, > but it didn't happen. Anyway, I would like to us to do > the next Biopython release soon - we have lots of > contributions waiting for wider use: > > https://github.com/biopython/biopython/blob/master/NEWS > > Ben: are you and your Windows machine available > and willing to prepare Windows installers again > (*.exe and *.msi as before) in the next couple of > weeks? > > [My own ancient Windows XP machine is due to be > replaced with a newer version of Windows on a VM, > which will take time to get setup for development.] We can always do the release and upload the compiled Windows installers later. > Everyone else: Is there anything critical that needs > fixing/merging? I've tried to keep on top of the pull > requests while away but there are bound to be some > which have been overlooked. If so, please comment > on them to request review or merging. I'm hoping we can include the MAF indexing work started by Andrew Sczesnak back in 2011 - extra eyes on this recently updated pull request from Blaise Li (BCC'd along with co-contributor Adam Novak) would be great: https://github.com/biopython/biopython/pull/504 > The release procedure remains somewhat manual, > despite getting more checks included with TravisCI. > I think http://biopython.org/wiki/Building_a_release > includes most of the changes due to the new GitHub > Pages based website, but I suspect going though > this again will lead to further clarifications. > > If anyone would like to try a test run of the release > process, and report any issues that would be great. > The epydoc step in particular has historically often > caught import problems and/or RST formatting issues. > > Also building the zip/tar-ball and installing it often > catches files missing from the manifest. That's > something we might be able to tweak the TravisCI > setup to do in future. Any volunteers? Is it worth starting the BSD dual licensing with this release, i.e. merging this pull request? https://github.com/biopython/biopython/pull/904 Peter