On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: >> But then that would screw things up for modules that unfortunately >> changed their versioning algorithm. I would no longer be able to >> require DBD::Pg 1.49, for example, even thought that's perfectly valid. > > Good point, but hopefully such changes are a very rare and momentous event > (as was the case with DBD::Pg). Version 1.49 (the last of the two dot > versions for those playing at home) is *severely* deprecated. One of the > reasons DBD::Pg jumped to 2.0.0 was to prevent any version comparison > confusion, as even Perl's wacky versioning tools cannot deny that 2 > 1. :)
A lot of folks changed without any momentous reason. So this suggestion, frankly, is right out. Frankly, I consider even momentous reason dubious. Pick a version and stick to it. I myself maintain a module or two with hinky version numbering systems because I inherited them and see no benefit to changing. Best, David
