Hi Kevin & all
I guess there are two basic scenarios:
- PKG2 is a plug-in replacement for PKG. In this case the API should change as
little as possible. PKG should be deprecated. One can even argue whether the
name change is necessary. (It may be opportune for reasons of credit /
assignment of
that were no longer relevant.
Martin
From: Bioc-devel on behalf of Matteo Tiberti
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:54 AM
To: Kevin Coombes , Herv� Pag�s
Cc: bioc-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] name for new BioC package
Dear all,
thanks for your input
just to answer on
;
From: Kevin Coombes
Sent: 04 February 2023 14:26
To: Hervé Pagès
Cc: Matteo Tiberti ; bioc-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] name for new BioC package
For the record, as a user, I *hated* the move from MOFA to MOFA2. Not the new
package nam
For the record, as a user, I *hated* the move from MOFA to MOFA2. Not the
new package name, but the fact that they also Schanged all the function
names and argument names. Mostly, they switched from using periods to
underscores. But this meant having to tediously hand-edit every script that
used M
Hi Matteo.
We had DESeq2 after DESeq, Rbowtie2 after Rbowtie, MOFA2 after MOFA,
etc.. so I don't see any problem, but thanks for asking!
Best,
H.
On 03/02/2023 00:08, Matteo Tiberti wrote:
dear maintainers,
I am currently listed as maintainer of Bioconductor package MoonlightR,
designed f
Dear Matteo,
Not a direct answer to your question, but here's another angle to it, from a
software development perspective.
Once Moonlight2R will be available, would you consider MoonlightR to still be a
viable alternative? If not, then you should also plan the deprecation of
MoonlightR. In th
