Closed cortner closed 2 years ago
I am ok with that. Just one thing to clarify - will the cylindrical/ellipsoidal cutoff also be moved to ACEbonds.jl
or do they still lie in ACE.jl
?
I want to move anything related to bonds into ACEbonds.jl. ACE.jl is getting too complex for me to keep it all in my head. And this is a well defined group of functionalities that can be removed - or, rather, separated out.
That was how I understood the proposal too. I just think that those two cutoffs can go with ACEbonds.jl
as I can hardly come up with other applications of these kinds of cutoff. If there is any, it must be really similar to bonds and we can then consider renaming ACEbonds.jl
to something else.
ok we want the same thing and I agree with you that this is the main / maybe only application.
I would actually consider moving Bonds back into ACE.jl but only much later once it has fully stabilized and we are starting to enforce backward compatibility.
Yes, I don't mind at all! Who is going to set up the ACEbonds.jl
repository?
I will set it up, but I won't mind at all if the two of you want to coordinate to get a first version to work.
There is NO RUSH whatsoever for this I think.
Thank you for agreeing. I'll go ahead and remove all bonds code after the current PR I'm working on.
done - cf #126
The last version of ACE.jl that comes with bonds included is version = "0.12.33"
- please make this an upper bound in your projects. Once the new ACEbonds is ready you can then move over your projects to that package.
0.12.34 is now tagged as the first version without the bonds code. So ACEbonds.jl needs to use 0.12.34 as a lower bound for ACE.jl
@zhanglw0521 @MatthiasSachs How do you feel about moving bonds out of
ACE.jl
into a new repoACEbonds.jl
. That way I can keep movingACE.jl
along without maintaining compatibility with the bonds implementation.