There's logic in this. Thanks.
George
On Aug 24, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Daniel Roe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:21 AM, George Tzotzos <gtzotzos.me.com> wrote:
>> One more question out of curiosity. AmberTools 1.5, to my knowledge, was the penultimate version of AmberTools. What prompted the jump of numbering from 1.5 to 12? It's a bit counterintuitive. Or am I mistaken?
>
> The '12' in AmberTools12 is simply because it was released in
> conjunction with Amber12.
>
> In my opinion the old numbering scheme was counter-intuitive (e.g.
> it's not at all clear that AmberTools 1.2 should be associated with
> Amber10, etc). Opinions vary though :-).
>
> -Dan
>
> --
> -------------------------
> Daniel R. Roe, PhD
> Department of Medicinal Chemistry
> University of Utah
> 30 South 2000 East, Room 201
> Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5820
> http://home.chpc.utah.edu/~cheatham/
> (801) 587-9652
> (801) 585-9119 (Fax)
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Fri Aug 24 2012 - 10:00:02 PDT
