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 going to become
2.0.0 in the next release. If 1.98.0 works as expected, you should
freeze it i.e. only touch it when you absolutely need to fix something
in it.

Hope this helps,
H.

On 06/11/2018 06:33 PM, Samsiddhi Bhattacharjee wrote:
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 <hpa...@fredhutch.org <mailto:hpa...@fredhutch.org>> 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 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 in release. Then commit (it's going
    to be a single commit) with a commit message that says something
    like "Resync with master branch".

    Cheers,
    H.

    On 06/11/2018 09:27 AM, Samsiddhi Bhattacharjee wrote:

        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
        enhancements to the package.

        In release 3.3 , there were major changes to the package, it is
        like a
        branch that we now realize that we need to abandon. We had
        introduced a new
        feature and for that we switched from deterministic p-value
        calculation to
        stochastic calculation. We did not notice the issues untill now.
        We want to
        switch back to the deterministic one, which was present last in 3.2.

        As suggested by Nitesh, I have made the changes in devel branch
        (basically
        by copying the code as it was in release 3.2, and only updating the
        DESCRIPTION file make the version 1.99.0 as this will be a major
        change
        (although we are taking a few steps back, we will probably add
        some steps
        forward before release 3.8).

        I wanted to put a .onAttach() message in the current version to
        make the
        user aware of the issues and possibly mentioning the next
        release and/or
        pointing to the older release. However, as Herve
        has pointed out, people may mix up devel and release versions
        causing
        problems. Hence Herve had suggested:

        "It will be much better if you actually fix the release version
        of your
        package. This should just be a matter of porting the fixes you
        do in devel
        with 'git cherry-pick'."

        Reason I am hesitating is that the changes (diff of 3.7 and 3.2)
        are quite
        a lot and doing selective changes as suggested will introduce
        further bugs,
        and even after selection these changes will be *many*. Is it ok
        to backport
        a "patch" to the release with a large number of changes? If yes,
        what
        should the version number be bumped to?

        Thanks in advance.

        Regards,

        --
        Samsiddhi

                 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

        _______________________________________________
        Bioc-devel@r-project.org <mailto:Bioc-devel@r-project.org>
        mailing list
        
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_bioc-2Ddevel&d=DwICAg&c=eRAMFD45gAfqt84VtBcfhQ&r=BK7q3XeAvimeWdGbWY_wJYbW0WYiZvSXAJJKaaPhzWA&m=fgBGvYIMbW3NwrKMVPVed43z9LsMyZhyprB7VIWmzRQ&s=mkxJZC0R8tmJDvJ5e5BD4q_sni2JIJB-sCIAkpGut9c&e=
        
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_bioc-2Ddevel&d=DwICAg&c=eRAMFD45gAfqt84VtBcfhQ&r=BK7q3XeAvimeWdGbWY_wJYbW0WYiZvSXAJJKaaPhzWA&m=fgBGvYIMbW3NwrKMVPVed43z9LsMyZhyprB7VIWmzRQ&s=mkxJZC0R8tmJDvJ5e5BD4q_sni2JIJB-sCIAkpGut9c&e=>


-- Hervé Pagès

    Program in Computational Biolog
    
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3DComputational-2BBiolog-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eRAMFD45gAfqt84VtBcfhQ&r=BK7q3XeAvimeWdGbWY_wJYbW0WYiZvSXAJJKaaPhzWA&m=yK9EcNtuXJxVARcKqhhDNsaafTbhs3BL6XY0N6Jg9Do&s=AHsUDoAQB3QsfUp0YXfRbO6LCtWkCM0BLKJzCMlqYsE&e=>y
    Division of Public Health Sciences
    Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
    1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
    P.O. Box 19024
    Seattle, WA 98109-1024

    E-mail: hpa...@fredhutch.org <mailto:hpa...@fredhutch.org>
    Phone:  (206) 667-5791
    Fax:    (206) 667-1319


--
Hervé Pagès

Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024

E-mail: hpa...@fredhutch.org
Phone:  (206) 667-5791
Fax:    (206) 667-1319

_______________________________________________
Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel

Reply via email to