[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New version of fast5 does not build




على الخميس 19 كانون الثاني 2017 ‫05:14، كتب Andreas Tille:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:59:36PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
>>>
>>>> daligner/dazzdb/dascrubber probably have new upstream snapshots that need to
>>>> be packaged.
>>>
>>> OK, these do not create any singnal on my dashboard so I'll leave this
>>> for now.
>>
>> That is because upstream doesn't make releases. I've just updated them now.
> 
> Yes, I know.  BTW, I have usccessfully requested release tags for
> pbbarcode.  So I personally will open an issue for any Github project
> I'm stumbling upon since it has no tags.  I have heard about that these
> developers are a bit stubborn about tags but I'll try my own luch
> anyway.
>  

See https://github.com/thegenemyers/DALIGNER/issues/35
I did not get any response to this ticket until I tried pinging the
author via email. It was still not a positive response.

I don't think I've ever managed to convince anybody of making release
tags, so I've somewhat given up.

>>> Sure.  That's for most of us the normal situation.  I did not intended
>>> to create any pressure - just wanted to coordinate a bit.  We do what we
>>> manage to do and if some newer version is not ready than be it so.  I
>>> just wanted to prevent that I might have used some spare cycles to
>>> polish old software if some new might have pending tasks I could have
>>> easily done.
>>>
>>
>> In case you are referring to pbbarcode, that upstream has deprecated some
>> software while people are still relying on it, so I don't consider this a
>> waste.
> 
> Yes, upstream of pbbarcode confirmed its deprecated but its now tagged
> and thus does not create any noise any more in our QA tools.  BTW, I
> restricted the test suite to some tests since the second part took
> *incredibly* long (so long that I even stopped the process on my
> laptop).  I'm not sure whether this is "*intended operation* or whether
> this is a sign of a failure.
> 

I remember there was this test that took a while, but I'd go do
something else while I ran it.

> But no, I was not refering to any specific package in my paragraph above.
> 

Ok

>> pbh5tools is in a similar situation.
> 
> I left it untouched since it did not raised any signal in the QA tools.
> 

It is in good shape. I just pointed out that this is another one that
upstream will tell you is deprecated.

regards
Afif

-- 
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name


Reply to: