At 17:59 -0800 02.01.2001, Nicholas G. Thornton wrote:
>>>I might be acting foolish here but why not do the new version formating as
>>>5.004r2.0, 5.610r1.0 etc?
>>I am not sure what you are asking. I cannot understand what those versions
>>are supposed to represent.
>
>Perl 5.004 Macperl 2.0, Perl 5.61 Macperl 1.0
>
>I'm not overly fond of the current 5.6.1 etc versioning, preferring the more
>simply numeric 5.610 etc, and since perl-perl uses 5.004 etc . . . Maybe
>that's
>just me ;)
Well, there is no perl 5.61, 5.60, or 5.610. The actual numeric version in
$] is 5.006, not 5.600. (I don't know if 5.6.1 will be $]==5.006_01, or
what.)
Regardless, the official version of perl _is_ 5.6.0. Whether or not you
like it or agree with it, that is what it is (I personally like it, but
that's not relevant :), and it would only be confusing to use anything
else. And while it might make sense to make MacPerl 5.004r4 or something
(actually, it would need to be 5.004_04r4), I am not going to go back and
change a version that is already released. :)
And as to the last number, this represents a build number from now on. So
it will be 5.6.0r1, not 5.6.0r1.0, because build numbers are just
incremented integers. I don't want to bother to try to version them; I
don't see a need.
FWIW, this is similar to ActivePerl's versioning scheme, and it seems to
work for them.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
