[investigate] Segger: clarify version 1.0.14 source — dongzehe/segger container vs upstream dpeerlab/segger (canonical) / EliHei2/segger_dev (legacy)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 46
- Forks
- 23
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Current state
- Pinned: container
quay.io/dongzehe/segger:1.0.14at modules/local/segger/create_dataset/main.nf:6 - Modules:
segger/create_dataset,segger/train,segger/predict - Pipeline modes:
coordinate(when--method segger)
Canonical upstream — two candidate repos
| Repo | Last push | Latest commit | Stars / Forks | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/dpeerlab/segger | 2026-05-27 | 2026-05-26 "[main] Integration/peerlab (#38)" | 17 / 8 | Active development, canonical successor |
| https://github.com/EliHei2/segger_dev | 2026-05-25 | 2026-03-11 "Update README with migration notice for new version" | 90 / 13 | Legacy — README migrated users to the new repo |
The README migration notice on EliHei2/segger_dev confirms dpeerlab/segger (Dana Pe'er lab at MSKCC — segger's institutional home) is the current canonical repo. EliHei2 is the prior maintainer (a contributor) who has handed maintenance back to the lab.
Neither repo has formal release tags as of audit time.
The version mismatch
- Pipeline pins
1.0.14 - Neither upstream has any release tagged
1.0.14 - Container is owned by
dongzehe(Genentech-affiliated) — likely a custom / internal build, source provenance unclear - Result: the pinned container is not traceable to any upstream release tag of either repo
Investigation questions
- What commit (and from which repo:
dpeerlab/seggerorEliHei2/segger_dev) doesquay.io/dongzehe/segger:1.0.14correspond to? - Should the pipeline be tracking
dpeerlab/segger(the canonical successor) directly? - Is there a Wave / nf-core / dpeerlab-published container we should use instead of
quay.io/dongzehe/segger?
Risks
- Supply chain: pinning to a non-upstream-traceable container is a meaningful risk for a public nf-core pipeline. Users and reviewers cannot independently verify what code runs.
- Reproducibility: if
quay.io/dongzehe/segger:1.0.14is ever deleted or rebuilt, behavior may change silently. - Wrong-repo risk: if the dongzehe container was built from
EliHei2/segger_dev(now-legacy), the pipeline is running stale code while the canonical maintenance is ondpeerlab/segger.
Migration plan
- Open an issue at
dpeerlab/seggerrequesting tagged stable releases + an official container build - Switch to a
dpeerlab/segger-derived container as soon as one is available - Document the version provenance prominently in
modules/local/segger/*/meta.yml
Cross-links
- Triggered by: Atera compatibility evaluation session 2026-05-28 (broader tool inventory check).
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with modules/local/segger/create_dataset/main.nf and the segger module directories, then inspect the provenance of quay.io/dongzehe/segger:1.0.14 against dpeerlab/segger and EliHei2/segger_dev. Determine the source commit and an appropriate canonical container or release path; the work is done when the container choice is traceable and provenance is documented in modules/local/segger/*/meta.yml.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- docker
- Domain
- infrastructure
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100