On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 10:59 +1300, Tony Bowden wrote:
Martin Ebourne wrote:
Not so unusual really, in the UK postcodes are of the form B27 6EG where
the first part is one or two letters for the local city, and a number
for district (numbered in alphabetical order, except for 1 which is
* Martin Ebourne li...@ebourne.me.uk [2008-01-17T19:50:44]
Sites really shouldn't try to validate this stuff. The most annoying one
of course is the very common mandatory county (as already mentioned on
this thread). At least 7 million people live in London so over 10% of
the population has no
On 2008-01-17, at 19:53, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Sometimes I get this problem, too. For some reason that I don't
know what it
is, retailers (like Apple) sometimes ask for my county.
Sales tax may vary by county. Of course that's a hate of a different
color.
On 18/01/08 00:50 Martin Ebourne wrote:
Sites really shouldn't try to validate this stuff. The most annoying one
of course is the very common mandatory county (as already mentioned on
this thread). At least 7 million people live in London so over 10% of
the population has no county, not to
Robert Rothenberg writes:
There's no useful reason to ask for the county when you have the city and
postcode.
I briefly made 'County' optional on our address forms. Unfortunately
that broke our customers' abilities to register .uk domains with us --
because while we didn't care about their
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 12:50:44AM +, Martin Ebourne wrote:
Don't forget the BFPO postcodes as well.
And the handful of 1ZZ postcodes too, for places like Ascension
Island :-)
Sites really shouldn't try to validate this stuff.
A common error - and one that provokes hate so we're
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the third
group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information, because
it's something you have anyway?
Not after
On 2008-01-17, at 11:46, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the
third group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information,
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:19:21PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 10:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Then stop calling them version NUMBERS.
While you, and other people, continue to do
On Jan 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
I think it's already been said, or maybe it went by on Twitter, but there's a
special layer of hell for DBAs who store phone numbers, social security
numbers and PIN numbers as numbers.
Ditto with postal codes -- especially
Philip Newton wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
I think it's already been said, or maybe it went by on Twitter, but there's a
special layer of hell for DBAs who store phone numbers, social security
numbers and PIN numbers as numbers.
Ditto with postal
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Or, ya know, Canadians. Damn Canadians with their alphanumeric postal codes!!
Here's a do you mind if I tell you how we [uhh, they] do it in Canada
moment...
Canadian Postal Codes are decidedly non-hateful. They avoided the
Martin Ebourne wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Or, ya know, Canadians. Damn Canadians with their alphanumeric postal codes!!
Here's a do you mind if I tell you how we [uhh, they] do it in Canada
moment...
Canadian Postal Codes are decidedly non-hateful.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:54:27AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 10:26, David Cantrell wrote:
I thought I'd already explained that the difference between 1.02 and
1.03 is a bug fix.
So 1.02 is 1.0.2?
No, it's 1.02. These days I eschew complex version numbers precisely
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the
third group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information,
because it's something you have anyway?
There's no consensus about what
On 2008-01-15, at 18:21, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
I'm fond of the system of versioning where the major releases are
indicated by shed count and forward-compatible releases are
indicated by
a quantity of bicycles.
You do that and you're going to get people using the shed color and
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 06:26:19PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 18:21, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
I'm fond of the system of versioning where the major releases are
indicated by shed count and forward-compatible releases are
indicated by
a quantity of bicycles.
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-16 00:25]:
Apparently PHP does something really stupid but I don't even
want to know what it is.
Because you asked not to hear about it: they have changed major
language semantics in point releases more than a few times.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
On 2008-01-16, at 05:00, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-16 00:25]:
Apparently PHP does something really stupid but I don't even
want to know what it is.
Because you asked not to hear about it: they have changed major
language semantics in point
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:01:37AM +, Smylers wrote:
Michael G Schwern writes:
Although thinking about it, since version numbers only make sense
within the same project, and since one shouldn't switch back and forth
between decimals and versions, and since one is already inclined to
Abigail writes:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:01:37AM +, Smylers wrote:
Michael G Schwern writes:
Although thinking about it, since version numbers only make sense
within the same project, and since one shouldn't switch back and
forth between decimals and versions, and since one
On 2008-01-16, at 04:01, Smylers wrote:
Consider a project with these releases in turn:
1.8
1.9
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.10
1.11
Once you go to 1.9.1, then after 1.9.2 the next version would be 1.10.0.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:17:34AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-16, at 04:01, Smylers wrote:
Consider a project with these releases in turn:
1.8
1.9
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.10
1.11
Once you go to 1.9.1, then after 1.9.2 the next version would be 1.10.0.
Not everyone
Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2008-01-15 at 23:26 +0100, Abigail wrote:
*HATE*
For this mailing-list, that's a remarkably on-topic post to be #100 in
the thread.
-Phil
Hate heartbeat?
On 15/01/2008, Abigail abig...@abigail.be wrote:
*HATE*
This thread is turning into an epic hatefest. Unfortunately, it is
impossible for the outside world to see, because Mariachi (or its
Apache configuration) can't deal with the . in
phil.pennock.hates-software.com. Plus the URL
On 2008-01-16 at 02:04 +, Earle Martin wrote:
This thread is turning into an epic hatefest. Unfortunately, it is
impossible for the outside world to see, because Mariachi (or its
Apache configuration) can't deal with the . in
phil.pennock.hates-software.com.
Yeah, I went to try to fix
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:19:21PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 10:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Then stop calling them version NUMBERS.
While you, and other people, continue to do so, then people will
assume
On 2008-01-16, at 09:19, David Cantrell wrote:
Given that it's a *version* *number*, adding them, multiplying
them, and
so on, obviously aren't useful. But comparing them clearly is useful.
1+2i is a number, and 2+1i is a number, but they do not have an
ordered relationship. But you can
On 2008-01-15, at 15:21, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Didn't I see something go by about an alpha/beta/gamma version
grammar?
For dealing with *other people's screwed up versioning*.
Sheesh.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Do you mint version numbers based on gut feel? If not, then 1.02
vs 1.03 almost certainly tells you something more about those
releases of Tie::STDOUT than 20060705 vs 20070828 would have, eg.
that you didn't overhaul the internals in the
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:38:09AM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk [2008-01-14 16:45]:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:39:17PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com [2008-01-13 17:50]:
What does 1.5.4 vs 1.5.2 really
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off the top
of my head that 1.03 was the most recent release.
So it doesn't tell me anything useful at all.
On the
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:02:11AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off the top
of my head that 1.03 was the most recent
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:26:00 +, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:02:11AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy recollection of
what features it has, and
On 2008-01-15, at 10:26, David Cantrell wrote:
I thought I'd already explained that the difference between 1.02 and
1.03 is a bug fix.
So 1.02 is 1.0.2? Then you do know something about it, and you're
going to be in trouble if you get more than 9 bug fixes.
But I wouldn't go so far as to
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off the top
of my head that 1.03 was the most recent release.
So it doesn't tell me anything
On 2008-01-15, at 14:00, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy
recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off
the top
of my head that 1.03 was
Peter da Silva wrote:
On the other hand, for me, 1.5.4 versus 1.5.2 does tell me something
useful.
...about your own software? What about the rest of us who might use it?
Strictly speaking there are three audiences for a version number:
1. Project members.
2. People outside the project who
On 2008-01-15 at 13:44 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
There are plenty of people out there which assume that Test::More, the
module which powers something like 80% of all Perl's testing, is unreliable
because it's version 0.74. The 0.x part says nothing about it's
reliability, it just
It was thus said that the Great Peter da Silva once stated:
On the other hand, for me, 1.5.4 versus 1.5.2 does tell me something
useful.
If a script worked on 1.5.2, it will work on 1.5.4 and it's supposed
to work on 1.6, and unless you hit a bug fixed in 1.5.2 it'll work on
1.5.1
On 2008-01-15, at 14:33, Sean Conner wrote:
Tell that to the PHP maintainers.
PHP is made of hate.
I treat PHP as plutonium, and stay sane by not touching it.
On 2008-01-14 at 06:48 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-14, at 05:13, Abigail wrote:
That's what I think as well. Unfortunally, PAUSE/CPAN/Perl think that
1.9 is just a shorthand for 1.900 and 1.10 is a shorthand for
1.100,
so if you've uploaded version 1.9, and then later upload
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:53:44 -0800, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com
wrote:
Phil Pennock wrote:
That's just arse-backwards. But it's how The Community is maintaining
Perl5.
That's why this versioning issue was the final straw -- not huge in
itself, but not insignificant and just
And my comfort language is whatever works.
The FreeBSD ports collection is perfect for that. I don't have to
worry about what some damn hairsplitting monks only interested in
their little religious language do. I just pull in the port, and at
the same time I get a nicely preconfigured
On 2008-01-14 at 18:30 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
The FreeBSD ports collection is perfect for that. I don't have to worry
about what some damn hairsplitting monks only interested in their little
religious language do. I just pull in the port, and at the same time I get
a nicely
* Phil Pennock phil.penn...@globnix.org [2008-01-15 16:05]:
I value Ports wy more than I value Perl threading.
Who in their right mind cares about threads on a system that
has a perfectly servicable fork(), anyway?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
On 2008-01-14 at 14:53 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Standardized automated installation? What's that? Maybe you get a link to a
.py file. Maybe you get a tarball and you have to copy the contents by hand.
Maybe you get a zip file. Maybe you get something that wants to use
autoconf,
Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2008-01-14 at 14:53 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Standardized automated installation? What's that? Maybe you get a link to a
.py file. Maybe you get a tarball and you have to copy the contents by hand.
Maybe you get a zip file. Maybe you get something that wants
On 2008-01-14 at 19:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Phil Pennock wrote:
And then there's the threading issue, requiring parallel Perl installs.
Abort! Abort! Hate drifting wildly of target!
What crack are you on?
This was part of the original post and part of the hate. All software
On 2008-01-14, at 16:18, Phil Pennock quoted a very very unstable mind:
the real problem is that the version number on Parse::RecDescent went
down!
from 1.80 (which translates into 1.800.000) to 1.95.1 (which
translates
into 1.095.001).
OK. I thought I understood what was going on, but now
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:09:39AM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-14T23:47:06]
On 2008-01-14, at 16:18, Phil Pennock quoted a very very unstable mind:
the real problem is that the version number on Parse::RecDescent went down!
from 1.80 (which
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net writes:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:09:39AM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
1.80 means 1.80. 1.95.1 means 1.095001.
How in the nine hells of software hate doesn't it mean 1.950001 or
some such crap?
Because (I believe the reasoning goes) if 1.95.1 mapped to
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:48:05PM +, Smylers wrote:
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net writes:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:48:40PM +, Smylers wrote:
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net writes:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:09:39AM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
1.80 means
On 2008-01-15, at 10:43, Smylers wrote:
So if in all contexts where Perl knows it's dealing with a version
number it suddenly started interpreting 1.8 as a sequence of
integers it
would break code which has been running fine for years presuming that
1.8 1.75. That would've been hateful.
On 2008-01-15, at 13:56, Michael G Schwern wrote:
That would make a project upgrading (or downgrading) to version
objects impossible -- or at least really noisy -- thus effectively
killing the version.pm project. I've seen a lot of projects filled
with self-hate, but not enough to strange
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 06:58:14PM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
To those looking for inspiration, I must recommend Acme::MetaSyntactic
as a source for random yet themed, er, words.
And no, it doesn't have version number problems anymore. It seems to be stuck
at 0.99 for a long
It was thus said that the Great Abigail once stated:
Man, sometimes I feel so tempted to put things like
$VERSION = 'yellow';
in my modules.
Quick! Can someone tell me which is older---Mac OS Tiger or Mac OS
Jaguar?
I remember a bunch of years ago a Linux module that would
On 2008-01-15, at 14:39, Sean Conner wrote:
Quick! Can someone tell me which is older---Mac OS Tiger or Mac OS
Jaguar?
Neither of these are versions. The corresponding versions (which is
what software would deal with) are 10.4.11 and 10.2.8.
In addition, everyone hauling out straw man
* jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2008-01-15T08:37:19]
1.80 means 1.80. 1.95.1 means 1.095001.
How in the nine hells of software hate doesn't it mean 1.950001 or some
such crap? How is this defensible in any possible way?
It's emulating the behavior of perl itself.
~$ perl -v
This
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:02:35AM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
* jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2008-01-15T08:37:19]
1.80 means 1.80. 1.95.1 means 1.095001.
How in the nine hells of software hate doesn't it mean 1.950001 or some
such crap? How is this defensible in any possible
* jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2008-01-15T09:43:56]
~$ perl -v
This is perl, v5.10.0 built for darwin-2level
~$ perl -V
Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 10 subversion 0) configuration:
~$ perl -E 'say $]'
5.01
So as a general class, perl is indefensible.
On 2008-01-15, at 08:02, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
This goes back to the fact that perl -once- used 5.00x
That's not just hateful, it's evil AND rude.
but the porters decided
that people weren't realizing how big a change was involved when x
became x+1.
so, for marketing reasons, you became
On 2008-01-15, at 11:42, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
I don't really have that much against the original design. Sure,
versions are
often represented as a set of numbers rather than a decimal
number. Having the
version be a decimal number isn't incredibly hateful, only mildly
annoying.
Having
On 2008-01-15, at 07:09, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Perl's interpretation of 1.80 as 1.800 might not be what people
expect, but it makes sense when versions are just numbers that you
=.
Version numbers ARE NOT just numbers.
Version numbers are n-tuples of integers. They are not floating
point
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:46:01AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
Version numbers ARE NOT just numbers.
Then stop calling them version NUMBERS. While you, and other people,
continue to do so, then people will assume that hey, it's a number and
I can do numbery things with it.
On 2008-01-15, at 10:03, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:46:01AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
Version numbers ARE NOT just numbers.
Then stop calling them version NUMBERS.
OK, Version identifiers are NOT 'just numbers'.
While you, and other people, continue to do so,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:46:01 -0600, Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 07:09, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Perl's interpretation of 1.80 as 1.800 might not be what people
expect, but it makes sense when versions are just numbers that you
=.
Version numbers ARE NOT
On 2008-01-15, at 10:09, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
If only!
Some projects use designators that are not versionable.
foo-bar_guh-1.23-12.18pl2a-rc0.1-1.1
That's not a version number. that's a release candidate for version
1.23-12.18, which is probably {1,23,12,18} but may be {1,23,18} or
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-15 19:00]:
Maybe something like this:
And you're telling me this won't hatefully fall over because
people will want to do things contrary to your scheme? That it
won't be just as hateful as Perl trying to accomodate two
conflicting conceptions of
On 2008-01-15, at 12:20, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-15 19:00]:
Maybe something like this:
And you're telling me this won't hatefully fall over because
people will want to do things contrary to your scheme?
No. But if I was implementing it I
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:49:19AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
I *suppose* you could come up with some scheme for alpha/beta/gamma if you
allowed negative integers in the tuple. Maybe something like this:
version:
integer = {$1}
| version . integer = {$1,$3}
| version pl integer =
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 07:09, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Perl's interpretation of 1.80 as 1.800 might not be what people
expect, but it makes sense when versions are just numbers that you =.
Version numbers ARE NOT just numbers.
They are to me. Numbers compare easily and can go
On 2008-01-15, at 14:05, Michael G Schwern wrote:
If the rest of you want to overload a simple number with all sorts
of special formatting to give magical meanings that exist in your
own heads and require special code to compare them, have fun.
Straw man arguments are hateful. Nobody here
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 14:05, Michael G Schwern wrote:
If the rest of you want to overload a simple number with all sorts of
special formatting to give magical meanings that exist in your own
heads and require special code to compare them, have fun.
Straw man arguments are
On 14/01/08 22:18 Phil Pennock quoted:
i talked to the author of CPAN.pm and he agrees that i did it right by
not quoting the version number.
the real problem is that the version number on Parse::RecDescent went
down!
from 1.80 (which translates into 1.800.000) to 1.95.1 (which translates
into
On 2008-01-15 at 10:35 +, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
Again, he went from the older numeric style version numbering to the
extended version numbering style between releases, which is considered a
bad thing.
In every environment except Perl, it's normal to be able to release x.y
and later
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:39:17PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com [2008-01-13 17:50]:
Peter da Silva wrote:
If the current version is 1.5.4 and the guy's running 1.5.2
that tells me more than if the current version's 20070620 and
the guy's
On 2008-01-13, at 14:26, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-13 20:50]:
And what does 1.5 mean?
It means it's backwards compatible with 1.4, but has more
features or has a security bug fixed.
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=396348
There's a
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-14 02:20]:
On 2008-01-13, at 14:26, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-13 20:50]:
And what does 1.5 mean?
It means it's backwards compatible with 1.4, but has more
features or has a security bug fixed.
On 2008-01-13, at 19:29, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't saying you made such a claim. It was really just
throwing a link over the fence without further commentary, since
you reminded me of it.
Ah. Too much exposure to Usenet (and more recently slashdot). Sorry.
On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
Tony Finch skribis 2008-01-13 16:02 (+):
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Lately I've been toying with ISO date integer versions, for that
what, you're
using the 2005 version?! Your shit is OLD! UPGRADE NOW! effect.
On 2008-01-13, at 18:17, Chris Devers wrote:
The only distinction that matters is whether it's actively
maintained dreck or abandoned dreck, and the MMDD scheme would
answer that question implicitly.
Just because there haven't been any updates to a package in a few
years that doesn't
On 13/01/08 05:24 Phil Pennock wrote:
Step 1: install X500::DN.
Step 2: test it
$ perl
use X500::DN;
Parse::RecDescent version 1.8 required--this is only version 1.95.1
Somewhere I recall *strong* advice to the affect that if one uses either
numeric versions (e.g. 1.23) that one should not
On 2008-01-13, at 18:25, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
Somewhere I recall *strong* advice to the affect that if one uses
either numeric versions (e.g. 1.23) that one should not switch to
extended multi-dot versions (e.g. 1.2.3) or visa versa in a later
release.
If 1.23 is treated differently
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-13, at 18:25, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
Somewhere I recall *strong* advice to the affect that if one uses
either numeric versions (e.g. 1.23) that one should not switch to
extended multi-dot versions (e.g. 1.2.3) or visa versa in a later
release.
If
On 2008-01-13, at 19:51, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Hateful is when you can't know what comes after 1.9. Is it 1.10?
Or 2.0?
1.10, unless the next version IS a major release.
In other words, sometimes it's a tuple of integers, sometimes it's
floating point number.
Anyone who treats a
On 14/01/2008, Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com wrote:
On 2008-01-13, at 19:51, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Hateful is when you can't know what comes after 1.9. Is it 1.10?
Or 2.0?
1.10, unless the next version IS a major release.
You know, if people would just use something else instead of
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:48:01 +, Earle Martin
hates-softw...@downlode.org wrote:
On 14/01/2008, Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com wrote:
On 2008-01-13, at 19:51, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Hateful is when you can't know what comes after 1.9. Is it 1.10?
Or 2.0?
1.10, unless the next
On 14/01/08 11:29 H.Merijn Brand wrote:
For those that use Cygwin, have you ever counted the mouse-clicks you
need to make a healthy update? HATE!
Yes. And I decided it was easier to install Linux.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:38:04PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-13, at 19:51, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Hateful is when you can't know what comes after 1.9. Is it 1.10?
Or 2.0?
1.10, unless the next version IS a major release.
That's what I think as well. Unfortunally,
On 2008-01-14, at 05:13, Abigail wrote:
That's what I think as well. Unfortunally, PAUSE/CPAN/Perl think that
1.9 is just a shorthand for 1.900 and 1.10 is a shorthand for
1.100,
so if you've uploaded version 1.9, and then later upload 1.10, if
people
request the newest version, they get
On 14/01/08 01:17 Peter da Silva wrote:
If 1.23 is treated differently from 1.23.0 that's just stupid. Oh,
and hateful.
Is 1.23.0 equivalent to 1.23 or 1.023 (since the middle part might be
three digits)?
I think the problem cited by the original post is that 1.95.1 is treated as
On 2008-01-13, at 19:51, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
On 14/01/08 01:17 Peter da Silva wrote:
If 1.23 is treated differently from 1.23.0 that's just stupid.
Oh, and hateful.
Is 1.23.0 equivalent to 1.23 or 1.023 (since the middle part
might be three digits)?
I'm sorry, I can't parse that
* Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com [2008-01-13 07:30]:
Lately I've been toying with ISO date integer versions, for
that what, you're using the 2005 version?! Your shit is OLD!
UPGRADE NOW! effect.
Conversely, of course, it also causes the what, the last release
is from 2004? Your shit is
Aristotle Pagaltzis skribis 2008-01-13 8:07 (+0100):
Conversely, of course, it also causes the what, the last release
is from 2004? Your shit is UNMAINTAINED! effect for things that
really are mature. MJD has a word or three to say about that...
Ah, but that's easily solved with a changelog
* Juerd Waalboer ju...@convolution.nl [2008-01-13 14:40]:
Ah, but that's easily solved with a changelog entry:
version 20080113- No bugs, no fixes. Version bump to please your PHB.
And veryone who uses a package manager of some sort will
*really*, REALLY love you for that.
Regards,
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Juerd Waalboer ju...@convolution.nl [2008-01-13 14:40]:
Ah, but that's easily solved with a changelog entry:
version 20080113- No bugs, no fixes. Version bump to please your PHB.
And veryone who uses a package manager of some sort will
*really*, REALLY
Aristotle Pagaltzis skribis 2008-01-13 18:15 (+0100):
And veryone who uses a package manager of some sort will
*really*, REALLY love you for that.
There's always something to hate.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Korajn salutojn,
Juerd Waalboer: Perl hacker ##...@juerd.nl
On 13/01/08 13:32 Juerd Waalboer wrote:
Ah, but that's easily solved with a changelog entry:
version 20080113- No bugs, no fixes. Version bump to please your PHB.
If your PHB is paying that much attention to version numbers of Perl
modules, you're screwed.
On 2008-01-13, at 00:22, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Lately I've been toying with ISO date integer versions, for that
what, you're
using the 2005 version?! Your shit is OLD! UPGRADE NOW! effect.
http://use.perl.org/~schwern/journal/35127
I tried that for a while, but even *I* couldn't keep
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
