On 1/18/07, Cory Snavely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an administrator who doesn't use the module but is waiting for it to
be packaged on CPAN to more easily provide updates to users, I have to
say this is all great.
I see no strong reason to bump the version to 2.0.0, but I have no
objection either, especially if that feels appropriate to those who know
the code and features.
I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but I'd like to see the new
stuff more widely tested before it gets a stable looking version
number. If most users (within the sound of my voice) are actually the
CVS version and not having problems with it, then I think it's safe to
avoid the x.0.0 bump.
Anyone out there using the current CVS, please respond (either way)!
I would definitely object to a rename (i.e., Marc::Record2)--that would
just cause breakage, from my perspective.
Of course! That was my objection too, and why I accepted the offer
(push, edsu?) for maintainership. Most important to me is getting it
out there un-borked.
Cory Snavely
University of Michigan Library IT Core Services
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 14:48 -0500, Mike Rylander wrote:
> So it is written, so it shall be done.
>
> I think, because of the number and size of the changes involved, it
> would be good to stamp the next version of MARC::Record as 2.0.0.
> There's a good bit of stuff that hasn't been very widely tested,
> though I know Evergreen and Koha use it on a daily basis, and a x.0.0
> version number implies newness.
>
> It doesn't seem too off the mark (heh...) anyway, since the name
> MARC::Record2 (and variants) has been bandied about quietly in the
> past.
>
> Thoughts/comments/sharp-sticks-in-the-eye?
>
--
Mike Rylander
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org
