Adrian Howard wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005, at 11:40, David Cantrell wrote:
The script that generates it doesn't change. The data that it mangles
into a module is the bit that changes.
Can you add a version number to the data?
Yep, did that last night. It's (eg) 1.20050420.
I dug through my mail and fo
> I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either side -
so I'd do whatever you're comfortable with myself.
In my case I tend to use synchronised version numbers. For big APIs (20+
classes) I often use Class::Autouse to recursively load them.
If two subsequent versions of the dist chang
David Cantrell wrote:
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes from
though. It has no version number because the
entire file is generated from a *real
What I'm moving towards is what SVK does. It has an SVK::Version module
which simply defines $SVK::VERSION. Then in other modules you can write:
use SVK::Version; our $VERSION = $SVK::VERSION;
That way it will be picked up by most $VERSION scanners.
See my post further up about syncron
On 19 Apr 2005, at 11:40, David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
The script that generates it doesn't change. The data that it mangles
into a module is the bit that changes.
Can you add a version number to the data?
So I'll take the suggestion of putting MMDD into a version number.
But then wasn't the
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes from
though. It has no version number because the
entire file is generated from a *really* dumb
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:00:23PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >Personally I prefer separate version numbers per-module, but some
> >people don't. I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either
> >side - so I'd do whatever you're
On Apr 18, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
Personally I prefer separate version numbers per-module, but some
people don't. I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either
side - so I'd do whatever you're comfortable with myself.
I used to do it per-module, but then I kept forge
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:03:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>> 1) Am I correct to seperate the package version (1.3004) from the
A small correction -- 1.3004 would be the distribution version, (not
mentioned as $...::VERSION in any package).
On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes
from
though. It has no version number because the
entire file is generated from a *really* dumb
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:03:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> 1) Am I correct to seperate the package version (1.3004) from the
> versions of the several modules contained therein - and if not, where
> should the package version number come from? and
There is no correct here. As long as eac
My apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but it seems like the
least-worst option of all the perlish lists I'm on :-)
I'm not sure if I'm using version numbers properly. For example, I
recently released a package Number-Phone-1.3004 to the CPAN. That
number comes because it contains th
12 matches
Mail list logo
