On Jul 12, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Doesn't that mean
perl -MDBI -e 'print $DBI::VERSION'
cannot indicate if you've got a dev version or a final release?
Yes, thank god. Because that's not where that information should be!
David
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:56:38 -0700, David E. Wheeler
da...@kineticode.com wrote:
Underscores should be banned from version numbers. Full stop.
In principle, and as an end-user I would wholeheartedly agree, but the
way CPAN /and/ CPANTESTERS is currently set up, having _XX support is a
huge win.
On 07/08/10 17:08, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Looks like it should have been 2.6.0:
2.6.0 = 2.006001
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.006001 2.017001
Version number suck. And clearly, three-version numbers suck harder.
I think, the best way out
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:47:00AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:56:38 -0700, David E. Wheeler
da...@kineticode.com wrote:
Underscores should be banned from version numbers. Full stop.
In principle, and as an end-user I would wholeheartedly agree, but the
way CPAN
FYI
- Forwarded message from David Golden xda...@gmail.com -
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:52:57 -0400
From: David Golden xda...@gmail.com
To: Nigel Horne n...@bandsman.co.uk
Cc: CPAN Testers Discuss cpan-testers-disc...@perl.org
Subject: Re: CPAN::Reporter: test results were not valid,
On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
FYI
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Nigel Horne n...@bandsman.co.uk wrote:
! DBD::Pg2.6 2.17.1
Let's review version number math:
2.6 = 2.60
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.60 2.017001
Looks like it should have been
On 07/08/10 16:32, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
FYI
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Nigel Hornen...@bandsman.co.uk wrote:
! DBD::Pg2.6 2.17.1
Let's review version number math:
2.6 = 2.60
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.60
On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Looks like it should have been 2.6.0:
2.6.0 = 2.006001
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.006001 2.017001
Version number suck. And clearly, three-version numbers suck harder.
I think, the best way out would be a hard consensus and CPAN reindex.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Looks like it should have been 2.6.0:
Yep, there is no such thing as version 2.6 of DBD::Pg.
I think, the best way out would be a hard consensus and
CPAN reindex.
Consensus on what exactly?
Perhaps it would be good if the mixing of two
On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Perhaps it would be good if the mixing of two and three
dot versions on the same check was treated as a severe
error and caused an automatic FAIL report.
I can't see a case where using both forms would ever be desired.
In my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I can't see a case where using both forms would ever be desired.
In my META.yml, I'll use three-digit notation for modules that use it
(DBD::Pg) and decimal for those that don't (DBI).
Right, I didn't mean to imply you can't mix and match
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
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
Short, sweet, simple.
Tim.
p.s. No one commented on the DBI going from 1.609 to 1.611 :)
On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
And thus may be X.Y or X.YY as well.
Short, sweet, simple.
Yeah, I'm with you. All of my modules use this format. (Except
Tim Bunce wrote:
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
Short, sweet, simple.
Tim.
p.s. No one commented on the DBI going from 1.609 to 1.611 :)
You mean now? 1.611 came out on April 29th. Or did you mean the
Underscores should be banned from version numbers. Full stop.
Best,
David
On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
Short, sweet, simple.
Tim.
16 matches
Mail list logo
