On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, fglock wrote: > Dave Rolsky wrote: > > It can go under modules/ if Rich is ok with moving the CVS. But I for one > > wouldn't want to move it without preserving the version history, which > > requires SourceForge staff help. > > The version history is not very important at this point, because I'm > actually working on a brand new implementation. It preserves the API, > docs, and tests, but changes all the code. > > It could even get a new name, such that Date::ICal current users are not > forced to upgrade. But I think that would be confusing.
I would think that the goal here is to have everything in the DateTime namespace. I thought we went through the copiously a few months ago. Date::ICal users would be encouraged to migrate to DateTime::ICal (or whatever it would be called) while Date::ICal itself would become a light wrapper around the new module. > Another option would be to distribute Date::ICal 2.xx with the DateTime > bundle, while the pure-perl Date::ICal 1.xx would stay as a separate > module for a while. People who install Date::ICal get the traditional > one, while people who dare to install DateTime will have Date::ICal > upgraded. That strikes me as a really bad idea. People who upgrade one module and find another (as far as they know, unrelated) module changed, will be irritated. I know I would. -- Nothing is perfekt. Certainly not me. Success to failure. Just a matter of degrees.
