Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
* Dominique Dumont domi.dum...@free.fr [2013-02-16 09:45]:
As Perl module developer, I'm guilty as charged: I haven't found
a practical way to change $VERSION when a file has actually changed
:-/
Nor should you. One day I’ll write that article, one day…
--
*AUTOLOAD=*_;sub _{s/::([^:]*)$/print$1,(,$\/, )[defined
wantarray]/e;chop;$_}
Just-another-Perl-hack;
#Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On 13-02-19 08:30 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: One day I’ll write that article, one day… You know how they say there is no time like the present... :-) Do it! `/anick
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On 13-02-16 03:39 AM, Dominique Dumont wrote: Le jeudi 10 janvier 2013 19:34:51,yan...@babyl.dyndns.org a écrit : So, yeah, I've embraced the per-dist version, and have lived happily ever after... Well, if you look at that diff [1] provided by CPAN, knowing that only*one* file was really changed, you'll see a big drawback of this practice. As Debian packager or Perl modules, I also have similar issues: when I want to evaluate the changes brought by a new version of a Perl module, debdiff will report similar cruft. If the diff added the option '--ignore-matching-lines=version', wouldn't that take care of a huge chunk of the problem? ... now I'm just thinking wild, wild thoughts, but did anybody at any time proposed to have, just like $VERSION, a $DISTRIBUTION variable indicating to which dist the module belongs to? With that, the version mechanisms could be modified to report the version of the main dist module if no local version is present. Mind you, this implies either core CPAN changes and changes of the UNIVERSAL::VERSION behavior, or sneaky ninja moves, so this paragraph is nothing that could happen anytime fast. But still, it's an idea. Joy, `/anick
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
Le samedi 16 février 2013 17:27:10, vous avez écrit : ... now I'm just thinking wild, wild thoughts, but did anybody at any time proposed to have, just like $VERSION, a $DISTRIBUTION variable indicating to which dist the module belongs to? With that, the version mechanisms could be modified to report the version of the main dist module if no local version is present. Mind you, this implies either core CPAN changes and changes of the UNIVERSAL::VERSION behavior, or sneaky ninja moves, so this paragraph is nothing that could happen anytime fast. But still, it's an idea. Unfortunately, this would not solve the problem for distributions tools like debdiff: this tool scan Debian package source and does not use code from CPAN. Packagers for Fedora or RedHat will have a similar problem with rpmdiff. All the best Dominique signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:34:15PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: Applying the same version to all modules within a distribution is a non- obvious precondition for dependency resolution to work 100% reliably in all edge cases. I have notes for an article about it flying around here somewhere that I should really get around to writing and publishing. I'd love to know what those edge cases are, because I can't think of any. Yes, please write and publish! -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity -- Hanlon's Razor Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice -- Richard Bos's corollary
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk writes: I'd love to know what those edge cases are, because I can't think of any. My guess is this applies to distributions that contain a number of modules, some (most) of them not relevant to the end user since they're internal to the distribution. If you cannot (want not) hide them, the best thing to do is give them all the same version numbers. -- Johan
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
* Lutz Gehlen lrg...@gmx.net [2013-01-09 16:20]: On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 09:04:31 Gabor Szabo wrote: I just wanted to update a distribution and ensure that all the modules in a distribution have version number and they are all the same. Please excuse this digression, but would you be so kind to explain why you find this desirable? In my distributions, I deliberately only bump the version number of a module to the current value of the distribution when I modify the module. Like that I can easily see when I last modified a certain module. Applying the same version to all modules within a distribution is a non- obvious precondition for dependency resolution to work 100% reliably in all edge cases. I have notes for an article about it flying around here somewhere that I should really get around to writing and publishing. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 08:38:55PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Lutz Gehlen lrg...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Gabor,
On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 09:04:31 Gabor Szabo wrote:
I just wanted to update a distribution and ensure that all the
modules in a distribution have
version number and they are all the same.
Please excuse this digression, but would you be so kind to explain
why you find this desirable? In my distributions, I deliberately
only bump the version number of a module to the current value of the
distribution when I modify the module. Like that I can easily see
when I last modified a certain module.
I think you strategy - updating the version numbers only when they change -
might be better, but I am too lazy for that, and I am afraid I'll
forget to do it.
If you know a tool that can ensure this, I'd be happy to hear about it.
A first step, from the command-line:
V=`git describe --abbrev=0`..;git diff-tree -r $V|cut -f2|xargs -IF sh -c
git blame $V -- F|grep -q '^[^^].*\$VERSION'echo +F||echo =F
As a git alias:
checkversion = !f(){ V=`git describe --abbrev=0`..;git diff-tree -r $V|cut
-f2|xargs -IF sh -c \git blame $V -- F|grep -q '^[^^].*\\$VERSION'echo
+F||echo =F\;};f
(Adapted from http://twitter.com/clunk_eth/status/203966679091384321)
This:
- picks the closest tag from the current commit
- makes a diff of the tree between that tag and the current commit,
to find all files modified since
- runs a git blame on each to find lines modified since the tag that
contain '$VERSION'
- prints the filename with a + ($VERSION line modified) or an = ($VERSION
line not modified)
I think having the same version number is still much better than having no
version number at all. That's why I was looking for that solution.
Dist::Zilla's VersionPkg plugin will write the distribution version in every
.pm file of the project.
--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)
Life is a play. The secret is to know your lines, respect the other players
and make a good exit. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #12 (Epic))
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On Wed, January 9, 2013 9:03 pm, David Christensen wrote: There seems to be two competing points of view regarding version numbering for software source code files: 1. Per-file -- a unique version number for each file that increments when that file changes. RCS and CVS use this approach. They also provide keywords that can be embedded in files for accessing version control system meta-data. For example, I use CVS and embedded it's $Revision$ keyword in my Perl files with the following incantation to set the Perl $VERSION variable: our $VERSION = sprintf %d.%03d, q$Revision: 1.32 $ =~ /(\d+)/g; http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.12.13/cvs_12.html#SEC99 2. Per-set -- unique version number for a set of files that increments when any one of them changes (and is the same for all the files in the set). I believe Subversion and Git use this approach (and Mercurial?). Yeah, after dithering about it for a few days, I went with the philosophy that the package has the version, not the individual modules. For the simple reason that the package as a whole is what's being developed, from the documentation to the scripts to the README file to, of course, the actual modules themselves. Hmm. I use the 'dist_version' key in my Build.PL file. Maybe I can take Gabor's idea and update my $VERSION values automatically using Build.PL as the starting point. This would maintain the holistic approach, and give me a single file to update instead of worrying about every file with a version number (which for me would be the README file and any *.pm files under the lib directory). Perhaps Gabor should consider using the second type of version control system that allows a Perl incantation similar to the first. Except that PAUSE (which is the primary driver of the $VERSION use) wouldn't be able to make use of it. As far as I can tell, it loads the .pm files to find the $VERSION number, and doesn't look at META.json at all. -john
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:06:10AM -0600, John M. Gamble wrote: Yeah, after dithering about it for a few days, I went with the philosophy that the package has the version, not the individual modules. For the simple reason that the package as a whole is what's being developed, from the documentation to the scripts to the README file to, of course, the actual modules themselves. For what it's worth, my own opinion goes in that direction as well. For a long time, I was in the one version per module in the dist camp, but then I realized, on top of the arguments given by John that: a) In real life, I never saw any user actually care about per-module changes (as, as mentioned above, it's the holistic dist blob that matters). b) and if anyone would care about what files exactly have changes from one release to the next... well, there's the repositories for that (and if there is no public repositories, that's nothing that 'git-cpan --backpan import' can't solve) c) it also simplify things when you want to specify versions in use statements. Using Foo::Bar in code A, and Foo::Baz in code B? If they are both from dist Foo and its version is 1.23, then you'll have consistent 'use Foo::Bar 1.23' and 'use Foo::Baz 1.23' (and although, true, you could do 'use Foo 1.23', there are cases of main module Foo where you wouldn't want to do that). So, yeah, I've embraced the per-dist version, and have lived happily ever after... Now, numerical version or semantic version format... that's an altogether more entertaining can of worms. ;-) Throwing my 2 cents in, `/anick --
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
Hi Gabor, On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 09:04:31 Gabor Szabo wrote: I just wanted to update a distribution and ensure that all the modules in a distribution have version number and they are all the same. Please excuse this digression, but would you be so kind to explain why you find this desirable? In my distributions, I deliberately only bump the version number of a module to the current value of the distribution when I modify the module. Like that I can easily see when I last modified a certain module. Cheers, Lutz
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Lutz Gehlen lrg...@gmx.net wrote: Hi Gabor, On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 09:04:31 Gabor Szabo wrote: I just wanted to update a distribution and ensure that all the modules in a distribution have version number and they are all the same. Please excuse this digression, but would you be so kind to explain why you find this desirable? In my distributions, I deliberately only bump the version number of a module to the current value of the distribution when I modify the module. Like that I can easily see when I last modified a certain module. I think you strategy - updating the version numbers only when they change - might be better, but I am too lazy for that, and I am afraid I'll forget to do it. If you know a tool that can ensure this, I'd be happy to hear about it. I think having the same version number is still much better than having no version number at all. That's why I was looking for that solution. Actually for the people who are not deeply involved in the project this might be even better than the one you do as it will make it easier to notice if one of the files is out of sync. I think. regards Gabor
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On 01/09/13 07:17, Lutz Gehlen wrote: Hi Gabor, On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 09:04:31 Gabor Szabo wrote: I just wanted to update a distribution and ensure that all the modules in a distribution have version number and they are all the same. Please excuse this digression, but would you be so kind to explain why you find this desirable? In my distributions, I deliberately only bump the version number of a module to the current value of the distribution when I modify the module. Like that I can easily see when I last modified a certain module. There seems to be two competing points of view regarding version numbering for software source code files: 1. Per-file -- a unique version number for each file that increments when that file changes. RCS and CVS use this approach. They also provide keywords that can be embedded in files for accessing version control system meta-data. For example, I use CVS and embedded it's $Revision$ keyword in my Perl files with the following incantation to set the Perl $VERSION variable: our $VERSION = sprintf %d.%03d, q$Revision: 1.32 $ =~ /(\d+)/g; http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.12.13/cvs_12.html#SEC99 2. Per-set -- unique version number for a set of files that increments when any one of them changes (and is the same for all the files in the set). I believe Subversion and Git use this approach (and Mercurial?). Perhaps Gabor should consider using the second type of version control system that allows a Perl incantation similar to the first. HTH, David
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
Hello, I just wanted to update a distribution and ensure that all the modules in a distribution have version number and they are all the same. I guess Dist::Zilla would do that, but this distribution I am patching use Module::Build. I found Test::HasVersion but as I can see it only checks if there is a version number. Not if they are the same. Do you have any suggestions for the above? I've found Test::ConsistentVersion, but not tried it yet. It seems to claim to be able to do that (I found it via Test::Version, which has the combination of Test::HasVersion, Test::ConsistentVersion and Test::GreaterVersion as a goal – it does not seem to have reached it yet.) A question of my own: I immediately thought of the single point of truth idiom, and would have written something like this: package My::Sub::Module; use My::Base::Module; our $VERSION = $My::Base::Module::VERSION; or similar. Would this trip up some version processing infrastructure somewhere? Regards, Ben Deutsch
Re: Make sure all the modules have the same version number in a distribution
On 08/01/2013 19:16, Ben Deutsch wrote: A question of my own: I immediately thought of the single point of truth idiom, and would have written something like this: package My::Sub::Module; use My::Base::Module; our $VERSION = $My::Base::Module::VERSION; or similar. Would this trip up some version processing infrastructure somewhere? Yes, it will trip up anything that tries to extract the version from the code without running it. This includes the PAUSE indexer so your code will either not get indexed or will get indexed wrongly. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H. L. Mencken
