On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:53:37 +0100, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote: > > and if you have the opportunity to place wishes > > you could mention the need for sane version numbers :) > heh. What exactly do you mean though? Do you mean that some CPAN modules have version > numbers in the form of 1.2.3 and some have the form of 1.0? I think the fact that > they vary so widely is not so sane. While having them in a more uniform way might be nice, what I actually meant is that it would be helpful if one module used a consistent scheme; we have way too many modules where we have to do {d,u}versionmangling because they switch from x.yyyy to x.yy and x.yy.zz or stuff like that (and we try to add 00$ or strip it or divide .xxxx into .xx.yy or something like that). > Do you think that perhaps the PAUSE server might have a gentle advisory that a version number > in the form of major.minor (i.e. 1.0) might be useful for those downstream as well as useful > for users to estimate the relative maturity of the code? Or is this one of those things that > would be great if we could do it but we can never get everyone to do it? I wouldn't be too optimistic; and it's no big problem anyway; just came to my mind :) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Aimee Mann: It's Not
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature