search

dimchris / mdanalysis

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/mdanalysis
0 stars 0 forks source link

0.7.5 release: a few files not included #95

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
While working on issue #83, I discovered (to be honest, "debuild" did) that a 
few files are missing when setup.py builds the sdist package.
What is missing:

  package/doc/README
  package/doc/sphinx/

I think these two should be included.

  package/examples/data/3ldd.pdb
  package/examples/output/adk_dims_first.pdb
  package/examples/output/adk_dims_last.pdb
  package/examples/output/rdf.dat
  package/examples/output/rmsfit_rmsd.dat

The 3ldd.pdb is definitively missing since one of the example script 
(make_MthK_tetramer.py) crashes. Not sure about the output files though. Maybe, 
it is not bad to leave them as reference outputs.

  package/src/delaunay/blas.c
  package/src/delaunay/c_numpy.pxd
  package/src/delaunay/delaunay.pyx
  package/src/delaunay/mf2c.h
  package/src/delaunay/tess.c
  package/src/delaunay/tess.h

Not sure about these ones. I could not find any trace of delaunay anywhere else.
I could not find when nor by whom those files were added (They seem to be there 
at least since release 0.5). As they do not seem to be needed anywhere (is 
there any delaunay triangulation made somewhere?), I think we could delete them 
safely. What do you think?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sebastie...@gmail.com on 14 Feb 2012 at 4:03

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Delaunay can go, we never made a real effort to make it work. I should have 
removed them ages ago.

The omission of package/doc/sphinx used to be intentional, I think, because we 
only thought we would include the generated html (save space...). However, on 
second thoughts we should really provide the user the opportunity to build 
their own docs so we should change this.

Including the example files should be done --- reference output is a good thing.

Probably some fiddling with MANIFEST.in is needed --- if you want to have a go, 
do it.

Post release I also added some docs that really should have been in 0.7.5.

We can do a patch release 0.7.5.1 or you generate the packages from a tree that 
has this Issue fixed and we tag it as 0.7.5-ubuntu1 or similar.

Original comment by orbeckst on 14 Feb 2012 at 4:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
(Oh, and the delaunay files go back to some things Naveen attempted, they've 
been there since the beginning I think.)

Original comment by orbeckst on 14 Feb 2012 at 4:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Ok, I am working on this one and the debian package issue as they are both 
related somehow.
I think the patch release 0.7.5.1 is a good idea. This patch thingy makes me 
think that the current repo structure is perfectible.
To me, one pretty efficient workflow is described here: 
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Hence my question: what about splitting the current "master" branch into a new 
"master" branch in which we put only end-user-ready code and a "develop" branch 
to handle newer-but-yet-not-experimental stuff (this is more or less what the 
current "master" branch)?

By doing so, we would not need to do things like changing the version to 
correct things and publish them before changing the version back to the dev one.

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 14 Feb 2012 at 5:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
We can think about the branching model. We used to do something like this but 
it was painful in the SVN days.

An immediate advantage of the develop/release/hotfix/master model would be that 
one designated release manager can take care of the release stuff, leaving 
developers to do their thing without having to worry too much.

Original comment by orbeckst on 14 Feb 2012 at 5:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision fb9ba38d50f1.

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 15 Feb 2012 at 10:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
OK I corrected a few things (basically what have been discussed in the previous 
comments).
The issue has been automatically closed because of the last commit's message 
but version 0.7.5.1 is still to be released officially.

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 15 Feb 2012 at 10:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision 740db3d3136c.

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 16 Feb 2012 at 2:30