Front page | perl.cpan.testers.discuss |
Postings from June 2011
--- On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, David Cantrell wrote: >> Do folks have thoughts on whether it's better for CPAN modules to use >> 2- or 3-part version numbers? >> >> I switched recently to using "vI.J.K" version numbering with my modules > > v1.2.3 isn't a number. > > Nor is 1.2.3. > > Therefore they are wrong. Glad to get that straightened out. It would be nice to have a clear and consistent message out there, as I violated your *never* exhortation (changing types for my modules), and went to some trouble doing so. -John > > However, because Wrongness was once thought to be Rightness, they are > supported, and using them is fine, *provided that* you are consistent > and *never* mix different types of "number" for a distribution. Once a > distribution uses proper numbers, it should *never* be changed to use > Wrongness, and if it already uses Wrongness it should *never* be changed > to use proper numbers. > > (for values of "never" that are accurate enough for a brief email, I > really can't be arsed with explaining when it's OK to mix and match and > when it's not). > > -- > David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence > > Arbeit macht Alkoholiker >Thread Previous | Thread Next