On 6/4/02 10:21 AM, "John Siracusa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Well, there are already "suggested" conventions for version number formats. > > Anyway, CPAN is supposed to be organized! It's not a free-for-all dumping > ground for modules. Let the version numbering and API anarchists use > SourceForge, I say! :) It's not like we're demanding EJB-like API rigidity. > So we'll continue to have $foo.setBlah() and $foo.blah() and $foo.Set_Bar() > in 6PAN, for better or for worse. All I'm asking for is some small meaning > behind version numbering. Is that so wrong? :) Okay, I'll buy that. And I think that suggested guidelines for compatibility between version numbers would be valuable, but I wouldn't think that we should enforce it. There may be good reasons to break backward compatibility in some cases. > Heh, I was going to suggest that new minor-version 6PAN submissions > automatically have all the earlier minor-version test suites run against > them before allowing them to go into the archive... :) Hmmm...perhaps as a warning: All regression tests not passed. Do you still want to upload this module? That'll stop the vast majority of offenders, and those who upload anyway will be more likely to have documented changes. David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
