On 01/09/13 07:17, Lutz Gehlen wrote:
Hi Gabor,
On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 09:04:31 Gabor Szabo wrote:
I just wanted to update a distribution and ensure that all the
modules in a distribution have
version number and they are all the same.
Please excuse this digression, but would you be so kind to explain
why you find this desirable? In my distributions, I deliberately
only bump the version number of a module to the current value of the
distribution when I modify the module. Like that I can easily see
when I last modified a certain module.
There seems to be two competing points of view regarding version
numbering for software source code files:
1. Per-file -- a unique version number for each file that increments
when that file changes. RCS and CVS use this approach. They also
provide keywords that can be embedded in files for accessing version
control system meta-data. For example, I use CVS and embedded it's
"$Revision$" keyword in my Perl files with the following incantation to
set the Perl $VERSION variable:
our $VERSION = sprintf "%d.%03d", q$Revision: 1.32 $ =~ /(\d+)/g;
http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.12.13/cvs_12.html#SEC99
2. Per-set -- unique version number for a set of files that increments
when any one of them changes (and is the same for all the files in the
set). I believe Subversion and Git use this approach (and Mercurial?).
Perhaps Gabor should consider using the second type of version control
system that allows a Perl incantation similar to the first.
HTH,
David
