|
Hi again,
Just to precise about what has been said :
"Both ImageJ 1 and 2 are still under development, are developed in licenses. "
We do not see such information in official sources.
Authors of ImageJ2 are the same than ImageJ (same lab, same last author, second author here was first author before):
See also the link below, where information is explicitely given :
Concerning the field "Version" in our pages, it should be understood as "Last version". I will speak with our team to make it clearer.
So, we are open to discussion and we can discuss about the need to create a new entry, but you should give us more insights about how the two versions are really different. For example, are plugins from ImageJ compatible with ImageJ2 or not ?
Best,
Fabien
De : Carnë Draug <carandraug+dev@gmail.com>
Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2018 01:35 À : Steffen Möller Cc : Debian Med Objet : Re: OMICtools of any use? On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 00:04, Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi David, > > On 13.12.18 13:29, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:15:11PM +0000, Carnë Draug wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 08:11, Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> wrote: > >>> I noticed that you reverted a commit by Steffen Moeller in imagej adding > >>> an OMICtools identifyer. For the moment I do not think it is nice to > >>> simply remove the work of fellow DDs without a consensus how to deal > >>> with these data - thus I reverted that remove for the moment. > >> Please revert it again. I did not remove it because I'm disliking > >> omics. I reverted it because it's wrong. I did it the first time > >> during the summer: > >> > >> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/imagej/commit/415ff687c5 > >> > >> But it was added again. I removed it yesterday for the same reason: > >> > >> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/imagej/commit/a40be89995 > >> > >> In both cases I have explained on the commit message why it was wrong. > > Uhmmm, sorry. I should have read the full commit message. I just have > > read your e-mail here and have seen your last commit. Sorry for the > > noise. I've now droped a Comment inside the YAML file (and I cross > > fingers that my importer code is robust enough to not stumble about it > > ;-) ). > > The OMICtools entry is about all versions. Just have a look at the > references to the literature they give. You can argue that it should > have two entries for two major versions. I don't see the need for that, > I must admit. In my reading, the assignment was/would be just fine. The > inaccuracies is not our's, it is OMICtools. And many, me included, in > this case regard it as a feature. > Hi Steffen The OMICtools entry seems very specific for version 2.0.0. There's even an entry line for version. Both ImageJ 1 and 2 are still under development, are developed in different places by different people, and even have different licenses. They are not just two major versions of the same software. ImageJ2 does encapsulate the ImageJ1 and the separation between the two is really muddy. That entry would make more sense once ImageJ2 gets packaged in Debian and someone has already packaged imglib2. |