Front page | perl.cpan.testers.discuss |
Postings from August 2011
Just increase major version of your modules and switch to x.x version numbering. So after 0.1.2 you can use 1.000, and this should be enough. Just remember that 1.2 > 1.11, so you should use the same number of digits when you continue increasing version numbers. John A. Kunze wrote: > How hideous would it be if I switched back to uniform 2-part version > numbering across my modules using the "nuclear option", ie, entirely > deleting from CPAN my few (I believe lightly used) module versions > that for less than a year have borne 3-part version numbers? > > Would this plan qualify as an exception to the "never" clause below? > > When I asked in June about the wisdom of switching from 2-part to 3-part > version numbering, I'd already mistakenly done so for half my modules, > innocently violating the primary rule. I want to switch back because it > hurts my sense of esthetics and has caused disruption in some smokers. > > -John > > > --- 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. >> >> 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 >> > -- S.T.Thread Previous | Thread Next