They're two names for the same thing, the same way that "rosetta++" and "rosetta2.0" are the same thing. I guess technically minirosetta is the internal/developer version, whereas officially versioned 3.x are the release versions.
We're supposed to prevent the name "minirosetta" from leaking into the documentation and into end-user interactions but obviously it does anyway!
There's a paper in preparation describing the code reboot between 2.x and 3.x.
So Rosetta_Beta in rosetta@home is developer version of rosetta++ 2.x?
> They're two names for the same thing, the same way that "rosetta++" and "rosetta2.0" are the same thing. I guess technically minirosetta is the internal/developer version, whereas officially versioned 3.x are the release versions.
>
> We're supposed to prevent the name "minirosetta" from leaking into the documentation and into end-user interactions but obviously it does anyway!
>
> There's a paper in preparation describing the code reboot between 2.x and 3.x.
>
They're two names for the same thing, the same way that "rosetta++" and "rosetta2.0" are the same thing. I guess technically minirosetta is the internal/developer version, whereas officially versioned 3.x are the release versions.
We're supposed to prevent the name "minirosetta" from leaking into the documentation and into end-user interactions but obviously it does anyway!
There's a paper in preparation describing the code reboot between 2.x and 3.x.
So Rosetta_Beta in rosetta@home is developer version of rosetta++ 2.x?
> They're two names for the same thing, the same way that "rosetta++" and "rosetta2.0" are the same thing. I guess technically minirosetta is the internal/developer version, whereas officially versioned 3.x are the release versions.
>
> We're supposed to prevent the name "minirosetta" from leaking into the documentation and into end-user interactions but obviously it does anyway!
>
> There's a paper in preparation describing the code reboot between 2.x and 3.x.
>