Greetings, Bioconductor Users! We are getting ready for our 5th Bioconductor release (1.4), and the increase in packages (along with corresponding procedures and methods) is simply incredible. The watchword for this release is: "Improved Documentation" and I hope we can live up to it. At this point, we are tentatively looking at a May 4th release date. We would be greatly assisted if you have the time to take a look at the packages under development and make suggestions for improved vignettes and examples by April 10th (after that, we will still appreciate them, but it starts to become less likely that they will be incorporated by the release date). The approximate release plan schedule, relevant for users, is: April 12 : FEATURE FREEZE, bug finding and fixing starts. May 4 : Proposed release date for Bioconductor 1.4. === REVIEWING If you want to help review packages, the critical components to review are the vignettes, and your job is to provide positive feedback, suggestions, and changes which improve the usability of the package. Everyone can do this, regardless of programming skills and level, and it is very critical that we start addressing what is perceived as a critical weakness. Note that all packages under development require the pending R 1.9.0 release: ** Bioconductor 1.3 is meant for R 1.8.1 and ** Bioconductor 1.4 is intended for the R 1.9.x series! (you do NOT want to mix and match, you might end up with a dysfunctional data analysis environment!) What to look for: 1) Does the package have any vignettes? Do the vignettes describe the sorts of activities that the package authors intend. Can they be improved? 2) Documentation: is the per function documentation readable and complete? Can it be understood by non-experts. 3) Integration: does the package fit well within the project. Do the authors use available meta-data resources, visualization tools etc (where appropriate). (acknowledgements to Robert G. for the above list). For the above, I think providing the actual suggested changes for #1 and #2 are critical to assist the package author. External commentary is always useful for these. While actual code modifications would be good for #3, it is just as important to propose where the changes should be made. If you decide to review, the primary person to contact is the package MAINTAINER (who can be different from the actual author). When you send a review back to the author, please CC' Tony mailto:rossini@u.washington.edu) and/or Jeff mailto:jgentry@jimmy.harvard.edu) so that we can be kept in the loop and assist maintainers during this process. Thanks in advance! best, -tony -- rossini@u.washington.edu http://www.analytics.washington.edu/ Biomedical and Health Informatics University of Washington Biostatistics, SCHARP/HVTN Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center UW (Tu/Th/F): 206-616-7630 FAX=206-543-3461 | Voicemail is unreliable FHCRC (M/W): 206-667-7025 FAX=206-667-4812 | use Email CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachme...{{dropped}}