On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:46:04PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
Hi All,
What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
modules in a CPAN distribution? I've traditionally only incremented the
main module in a distribution and any modules that have been changed
since the
David Wheeler wrote:
So, what do people like or prefer, and why? Is there a consensus on
this? If so, what is it?
I manually give the main module in a distribution a real version number
such as 2.00, 2.01, and so on. Naturally this changes on every release.
All the other modules in a
Elizabeth Mattijsen said:
At 19:46 -0800 1/8/04, David Wheeler wrote:
What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
modules in a CPAN distribution? I've traditionally only incremented
the main module in a distribution and any modules that have been
changed since the last
* David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-09 12:37]:
So, what do people like or prefer, and why?
I don't yet have any modules on CPAN (I do have an ID and plans
for it), but I intend to handle this the way Andy does and I also
prefer it as a user of modules when authors keep to that
practice.
At 12:15 +0100 1/9/04, Paul Johnson wrote:
Elizabeth Mattijsen said:
I have an update script that forces me to go
through all of the module files of a distribution. It forces me to
check things whenever I start a new version.
Ooh. Too much work! Here's the relevant
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:49:59AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
I think it's a good idea for every module to have a version number, even
if they are very rarely used. If possible, don't change version numbers
of sub-modules between distributions unless they have changed.
That way it is easy
* Elizabeth Mattijsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-09 14:11]:
I think the packaged with distribution is a _very_ nice extra
addition that could be automatically handled with
Devel::Required.
Laziness good. :-)
Something like:
=head1 DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION
This file was packaged with
At 15:00 +0100 1/9/04, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Elizabeth Mattijsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-09 14:11]:
Something like:
=head1 DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION
This file was packaged with the Foo-Bar-0.01 distribution on
Friday January 9th, 2004 on 14:12 CET.
The date is a nice touch. I'd definitely
* David Wheeler david at kineticode.com [2004/01/08 19:46]:
What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
modules in a CPAN distribution?
Lately, all the code I write has had two version numbers: $VERSION and
$REVISION. I keep $VERSION up to date with the version number of
* Elizabeth Mattijsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-09 15:15]:
Hmmm... now there are two catches to implement this in
Devel::Required.
- Is Devel::Required still a good name then?
I think not, but I have not the slightest clue what to propose.
All I know is it's dealing with versions, so maybe
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 19:46:04 -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
What's the consensus on the version numbers to give to different
modules in a CPAN distribution?
[snip]
Still others have made all of the modules
in a single distribution have the same version number.
This is the practice I have followed
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:59:51 -0500, Terrence Brannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1- I uploaded version 0.25 of DBIx::Recordset to supercede to 0.24
release as I am the new maintainer
2 - CPAN.pm showed 0.24 as the new release so I asked Gerald to edit
the metadata on PAUSE for
On Jan 9, 2004, at 6:08 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
You should probably look at Liz' Devel::Required module first,
even though it doesn't yet(!) do what you've sketched -- and
particularly because:
Yeah, right...in my spare time!
:-)
Yeah, but I use Module::Build, not ExtUtils::MakeMaker. But maybe I
13 matches
Mail list logo
