Comments on task list
Hello,
I just added a June 2017 PLoS One paper to DeepNano's
debian/upstream/metadata and was a bit surprised about the comment
"*Remark of Debian Med team:* There is no intend to keep continue the
existing packaging since the program nanocall seems to serve the
intended purpose better" in the bio-ngs task. I asked "git blame" and it
blamed me - likely because of some rearrangements a couple of months ago
because of which I had edited the line, anyway, I then removed that comment.
In principle, I am all for directing users towards packages they want to
use. After all, having a software packaged is already a selection. But
any such direct comparison deserves a reference to a publication/URL or
the direct notion of the reason and the version of the packages that was
the basis of that judgement.
It would be rather interesting to think about how to formally express
the preference of one tool over another. After all, any such preference
typically only holds for specific lengths or reads or species or ... .
We would have functional equivalence classes of tools so they would all
formally fit as input to a certain set of workflows, but for additional
reasons, part of which may be individual to the user, one tool is
preferred over another (quality of reads/degradation, infiltration with
pathogens, number of reads paired with maximal run time, quality, ....).
I like it.
Steffen
Reply to: