On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>
> > Then don't try to have just one standard. Perl is smart enough to
> > understand multiple standards. Just document what those are and
> > provide some means of descri
On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
Then don't try to have just one standard. Perl is smart enough to
understand multiple standards. Just document what those are and
provide some means of describing how they map to one another, and list
the alternatives clearly on the documentation f
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> >> Are there any compelling reasons to keep allowing any type of version
> >> numbers?
>
> I suspect that the amount of time saved by any ben
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that the amount of time saved by any benefits from
> standardized version numbers will be dwarfed by the amount of time
> spent arguing over what the standard should be.
We can kill two birds wi
On Mar 3, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Are there any compelling reasons to keep allowing any type of version
numbers?
I suspect that the amount of time saved by any benefits from
standardized version numbers will be dwarfed by the amount of time
spent arguing over what the
# from Gabor Szabo
# on Monday 03 March 2008 11:05:
>As far as I can tell there is already an almost universally accepted
> format of \d+\.\d\d for released versions and \d+\.\d\d_\d\d for
> development versions.
>
>Are there any compelling reasons to keep allowing any type of ve
Hi,
I know Perl is all about diversity but I wonder if requiring a uniform
way of providing version numbers of modules on CPAN would be too much
of restriction on the freedom of module authors?
I think it would make life easier for tool authors (PAUSE/CPAN.pm/CPANPLUS etc)
and downstream distro
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:49:59AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> David Wheeler wrote:
> > So, what do people like or prefer, and why? Is there a consensus on
> > this? If so, what is it?
>
> I manually give the main module in a distribution a "real" version number
> such as 2.00, 2.01, and so on.
Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
I guess I can make it so that if you had in PERL5OPTS, it would only
do its magic when called from Makefile.PL. So I could make it
implicit for the lazy ones amongst us.
Do we have a name for this beast? Devel::Panacea doesn't seem right
either... ;-)
Devel::Ver
On Jan 10, 2004, at 2:01 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
I don't think support for it should be that difficult: it all depends
on knowing what sub to steal from Module::Build and what to do with
which of its parameters. The example of WriteMakefile should be
clear, I think ;-)
For Module::Bui
* Elizabeth Mattijsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-10 13:43]:
> Do we have a name for this beast? Devel::Panacea doesn't seem right
> either... ;-)
I think the keywords for summarizing its intent are
"documentation" and "consistent", but I think I'm missing a
better keyword. I don't have any g
perl -MDevel::Panacea Makefile.PL -> updates modules, PODs,
version numbers, and so on
Ok, fair enough.
I guess I can make it so that if you had in PERL5OPTS, it would only
do its magic when called from Makefile.PL. So I could make it
implic
e.PL -> updates modules, PODs,
version numbers, and so on
-- Johan
At 18:34 -0800 1/9/04, David Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 6:08 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
You should probably look at Liz' Devel::Required module first,
even though it doesn't yet(!) do what you've sketched -- and
particularly because:
Yeah, right...in my spare time!
:-)
Yeah, but I use Module::B
On Jan 9, 2004, at 6:08 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
You should probably look at Liz' Devel::Required module first,
even though it doesn't yet(!) do what you've sketched -- and
particularly because:
Yeah, right...in my spare time!
:-)
Yeah, but I use Module::Build, not ExtUtils::MakeMaker. But maybe I
* David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-10 02:38]:
> I do like Aristotle's idea of providing a line in the POD that
> says what version of the distribution a module came with. Guess
> I'll start working on a module that does the following:
>
> * Updates the distribution number line in POD.
>
On Jan 8, 2004, at 7:46 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
modules in a CPAN distribution?
Thank you all for your great feedback. I personally have always
considered it important for all modules in a distribution to have
version nu
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 19:46:04 -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
> modules in a CPAN distribution?
[snip]
> Still others have made all of the modules
> in a single distribution have the same version number.
>
This is
* Elizabeth Mattijsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-09 15:15]:
> Hmmm... now there are two catches to implement this in
> Devel::Required.
>
> - Is Devel::Required still a good name then?
I think not, but I have not the slightest clue what to propose.
All I know is it's dealing with versions, so
* David Wheeler [2004/01/08 19:46]:
> What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
> modules in a CPAN distribution?
Lately, all the code I write has had two "version" numbers: $VERSION and
$REVISION. I keep $VERSION up to date with the version numbe
At 15:00 +0100 1/9/04, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Elizabeth Mattijsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-09 14:11]:
> Something like:
=head1 DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION
This file was packaged with the Foo-Bar-0.01 distribution on
Friday January 9th, 2004 on 14:12 CET.
The date is a nice touch. I'd definitel
* Elizabeth Mattijsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-09 14:11]:
> I think the "packaged with distribution" is a _very_ nice extra
> addition that could be automatically handled with
> Devel::Required.
Laziness good. :-)
> Something like:
>
> =head1 DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION
>
> This file was pack
At 13:13 +0100 1/9/04, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-09 12:37]:
> So, what do people like or prefer, and why?
So a notice along the lines of "This file was packaged with the
Foo-Bar-0.42 distribution" in the POD should suffice.
I think that's my conclusion; versi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:49:59AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> I think it's a good idea for every module to have a version number, even
> if they are very rarely used. If possible, don't change version numbers
> of sub-modules between distributions unless they have changed.
At 12:15 +0100 1/9/04, Paul Johnson wrote:
Elizabeth Mattijsen said:
> I have an update script that forces me to go
through all of the module files of a distribution. It forces me to
> check things whenever I start a new version.
Ooh. Too much work! Here's the relevant p
s to
explicitly tag everything, or at least the submodules, with two
different version numbers - one for their private version, one
for the version of the distribution they're distributed with.
Treatmennt of the latter is not absolutely obvious though, as
it's a potential 1:n relation for all
Elizabeth Mattijsen said:
> At 19:46 -0800 1/8/04, David Wheeler wrote:
>>What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
>>modules in a CPAN distribution? I've traditionally only incremented
>>the main module in a distribution and any modules tha
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:40:37AM +0100, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> >So, what do people like or prefer, and why? Is there a consensus on
> >this? If so, what is it?
>
> I don't think there is a consensus. ;-)
Seems to me the consensus is "each to their own". :-)
Mx.
At 19:46 -0800 1/8/04, David Wheeler wrote:
What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
modules in a CPAN distribution? I've traditionally only incremented
the main module in a distribution and any modules that have been
changed since the last release. But this me
en
if they are very rarely used. If possible, don't change version numbers
of sub-modules between distributions unless they have changed.
That way it is easy to tell at a glance that versions 2.10 and 2.11 of
the Foo::Bar distribution, both use the same version 3.14 of the
Foo::Bar::Magic:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:46:04PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
> modules in a CPAN distribution? I've traditionally only incremented the
> main module in a distribution and any modules that h
nuary 08, 2004 8:46 PM
> To: Module Authors
> Subject: Version Numbers
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
> modules in a CPAN distribution? I've traditionally only incremented the
> main module in a distribution
Hi All,
What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
modules in a CPAN distribution? I've traditionally only incremented the
main module in a distribution and any modules that have been changed
since the last release. But this means that I have modules i
33 matches
Mail list logo
