Update experimental tag #72
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
1 similar comment
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
Okay, I need to update the file structure in Interchange for this to work properly |
|
Specifically the examples in the Interchange repo need to be moved around since the directory structure is how "experimental" is determined, i.e. move |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
2 similar comments
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
I think this now requires a fix in OpenMMForceFields and conflicts with the patch I just merged to pin 0.4.1 - So I think this needs to wait. |
|
Yeah, that's true |
|
This is blocked by openmm/openmmforcefields#365 being in a release, which will probably happen soon |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Yoshanuikabundi
left a comment
Yoshanuikabundi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great! I have checked that the OpenMM import example is correctly marked as non-experimental in the rendered docs.
I should know this but is your preference to merge your own PRs or for the code owner to merge PRs?
I'm happy with either - marginal preference towards whatever gets it in quicker but no fuss from me either way 🙂 |
No description provided.