>>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:30:18 -0400, David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> said:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes > <sthoe...@efn.org> wrote: >>> Form (a) is recommended for all new version numbers. Form (b) is >>> allowed for compatibility with legacy version numbering. >> >> Bluntly: No. >> >> Use a triple tuple if you like, but I want my versions to be a number >> and only a number. >> >> I'm baffled that you would think dictating otherwise makes sense. > I'm 99% a "just use numbers" guy in my own practice, so I understand > your point of view well. I'm 75% a "just use numbers" guy in my own practice, so I understand both your points of view well:) > "Recommended" does not mean "mandated". I think it will help to have > a clear recommendation so that authors who don't read documentation > can just follow a pattern. Something that Schwern and Damian got wrong is not "authors not reading documentation" it is rather missing documentation. > I don't want to recommend numbers, because authors that start with > numbers and then switch to tuples apparently tend to screw it up. I imagine giving version.pm a better manpage helps. The current manpage is a hide and seek game. It should be the whole truth instead. Instead of "don't convert" it should be "here is how to convert". -- andreas
