On 8/7/07, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > David E. Wheeler wrote: > >> A three-number version is really a necessity however, else there is > >> no easy > >> way to tell a minor bug fix from a normal next-version-with-new-features > >> release, a problem we've had in the past. > > > > Sure there is. Use the second decimal place to indicate. A major > > update would be 1.60 or 2.10, while a minor update would be 1.61 or 2.11. > > > > Then we are restricted to 10 values for each ... that seems rather > restrictive. And yes, I'd be annoyed if some extra dependency were added > - do I count as "a significant subset"? ;-)
Just use more decimal places then. Major releases use the first two decimal places, minor the next two. So your releases might be: 2.00, 2.0001, 2.0002, 2.02, 2.0201, 2.0203, etc. That scheme should do you for quite a few years. At which point there is likely to be no objection to using version.pm. Cheers, Ben
