On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:12:57AM -0400, Thomas A. Lowery wrote:
> I've changed my version of DBD::ADO to 2.0, instead of continuing the
> 1.X line. This may help in future releases.
>
> > > Why did the version regress? Let's take a look at the code for
> > > blib/DBD/ADO.pm in DBI 1.15 and 1.14:
>
> Tim and I we're attempting to maintain DBD::ADO is two different CVS
> libraries I believe.
> Now, my question: Is this the standard "version" syntax?
> $VERSION = substr(q$Revision: 2.0 $, 9,-1) +0;
> using: perl -MDBD::ADO -e "print $DBD::ADO::VERSION"
> I get 2
> Is there a better method?
The +0 isn't needed now. A -1 is common when RCS gives the file a 1.x
version but the author wants a 0.x version.
> Attached is my latest version. Only a few minor differences from the
> CPAN version.
Thanks.
> Maybe I should release DBD::ADO as a CPAN module as it's grown, and
> really only applies to Win32 systems (AFAIK). Opinions?
> Then if you, Tim, still want to continue including it with the DBI release,
> you'd just need to pull the current CPAN version.
I'd be very happy for DBD::ADO to be released to CPAN (DBI::Shell and
the proxy modules as well). That way development and upgrades can be
decoupled from DBI releases.
But I think I'd still like to bundle them all with the DBI. My general
approach at this time is that all widely used pure-perl drivers (and
DBD::ADO on Win32 counts) should be bundled with the DBI.
Tim.
