Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
From: Jonas Bromso Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The RT raises an issue with the distribution version number not being > equal to the one in the main package version, in my case Workflow.pm > > I like to be able to release distributions without necessarily > touching a code module, if changes are just documentation, tests or > other files. I only update package versions when code/functionality > changes, so developers using my module can depend on this version > number, when examining APIs, bugs etc. > > But as the RT states this makes it practically impossible to trace > from what distribution the package came from and the current version > of 1.32 is present in several distributions. I would be surprised to find the main module having version 0.31 in the distribution version 1.32. I would not be surprised to find a modul with version 0.31 in distribution version 0.31.46. IMHO, if you need to release a new distro because of some docs changes or some fixes in a "submodule", do not bump up the revision, use a build number for that (or whatever you want to call it, I'm talking about distribution versions in format version.revision.build. Not sure what's the standard nomenclature.) Jenda = [EMAIL PROTECTED] === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz = When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed to get drunk and croon as much as they like. -- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-12T18:05:39] >> Burak Gürsoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Well... You should either rename this thing or advertise more :) >> >> And reduce the number of prerequisites, if possible. > > If anything, expect more prereqs in the future. to further go OT :-) Instead of advocating the reduction of dependencies IMHO we should further improve our distribution methods. Downstream repackaging (Debian, Fedora etc), binary packages (ppm, par), stable CPAN ( http://news.perlfoundation.org/2008/08/2008q3_grant_proposal_cpan_sta.html ) Gabor
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
* Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-12T18:05:39] > Burak Gürsoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well... You should either rename this thing or advertise more :) > > And reduce the number of prerequisites, if possible. If anything, expect more prereqs in the future. -- rjbs
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
Burak Gürsoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well... You should either rename this thing or advertise more :) And reduce the number of prerequisites, if possible. -- Johan
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
* Burak Gürsoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-11T14:25:27] > Well... You should either rename this thing or advertise more :) I'll advertise more when it's stabler. -- rjbs
RE: Distribution version vs. Main package version
Well... You should either rename this thing or advertise more :) -Original Message- From: Ricardo SIGNES [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:51 AM To: module-authors@perl.org Subject: Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version * Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10T17:17:22] > I'm starting to get annoyed by the extraneous commits into the revision > control system. And so I'm considering the option of not having the version > number in the file that gets checked in, but expanding it for a release. Using Dist::Zilla, there is no extraneous commit. $VERSION assignment is added at 'make dist' time by dzil. The single canonical source for dist version is the dist configuration file. -- rjbs
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
In general configuration mgt thought there is the version of the distribution and that in turn consists of a set of revisions of components. Bumping the revision # of everything makes for configuration management nightmares. AFAIK subversion and RCS work this way. I saw it first 20 years ago on Polytron PVCS --Original Message-- From: Ricardo SIGNES Sender: To: module-authors@perl.org Sent: Nov 10, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version * Jonas Brømsø Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10T16:15:20] > I like to be able to release distributions without necessarily > touching a code module, if changes are just documentation, tests or > other files. I only update package versions when code/functionality > changes, so developers using my module can depend on this version > number, when examining APIs, bugs etc. I use perl-reversion (part of Perl-Version) or Dist::Zilla to keep the same version on every .pm file and the dist. It's a little annoying that the version changes on things that are unchanged, but it keeps life simple. -- rjbs Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with Nextel Direct Connect
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 06:50:58PM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > * Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10T17:17:22] > > I'm starting to get annoyed by the extraneous commits into the revision > > control system. And so I'm considering the option of not having the version > > number in the file that gets checked in, but expanding it for a release. > > Using Dist::Zilla, there is no extraneous commit. $VERSION assignment is > added > at 'make dist' time by dzil. The single canonical source for dist version is > the dist configuration file. Ah yes, that is exactly what I was thinking of, on a healthy dose of steroids. Thank-you for writing it. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10T17:17:22] > I'm starting to get annoyed by the extraneous commits into the revision > control system. And so I'm considering the option of not having the version > number in the file that gets checked in, but expanding it for a release. Using Dist::Zilla, there is no extraneous commit. $VERSION assignment is added at 'make dist' time by dzil. The single canonical source for dist version is the dist configuration file. -- rjbs
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:43:27PM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > * Jonas Brømsø Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10T16:15:20] > > I like to be able to release distributions without necessarily > > touching a code module, if changes are just documentation, tests or > > other files. I only update package versions when code/functionality > > changes, so developers using my module can depend on this version > > number, when examining APIs, bugs etc. > > I use perl-reversion (part of Perl-Version) or Dist::Zilla to keep the same > version on every .pm file and the dist. It's a little annoying that the > version changes on things that are unchanged, but it keeps life simple. I do this too (with a home made make target - the master version lives in Makefile.PL) and it works well, but ... I'm starting to get annoyed by the extraneous commits into the revision control system. And so I'm considering the option of not having the version number in the file that gets checked in, but expanding it for a release. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Jonas Brømsø Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10T16:15:20] >> I like to be able to release distributions without necessarily >> touching a code module, if changes are just documentation, tests or >> other files. I only update package versions when code/functionality >> changes, so developers using my module can depend on this version >> number, when examining APIs, bugs etc. > > I use perl-reversion (part of Perl-Version) or Dist::Zilla to keep the same > version on every .pm file and the dist. It's a little annoying that the > version changes on things that are unchanged, but it keeps life simple. Regarding APIs, I'd add a separate API number that only changes when the API changes. Gabor
Re: Distribution version vs. Main package version
* Jonas Brømsø Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10T16:15:20] > I like to be able to release distributions without necessarily > touching a code module, if changes are just documentation, tests or > other files. I only update package versions when code/functionality > changes, so developers using my module can depend on this version > number, when examining APIs, bugs etc. I use perl-reversion (part of Perl-Version) or Dist::Zilla to keep the same version on every .pm file and the dist. It's a little annoying that the version changes on things that are unchanged, but it keeps life simple. -- rjbs
Distribution version vs. Main package version
Hello Module Authors, I have received a RT ticket on my Workflow distribution. The RT raises an issue with the distribution version number not being equal to the one in the main package version, in my case Workflow.pm I like to be able to release distributions without necessarily touching a code module, if changes are just documentation, tests or other files. I only update package versions when code/functionality changes, so developers using my module can depend on this version number, when examining APIs, bugs etc. But as the RT states this makes it practically impossible to trace from what distribution the package came from and the current version of 1.32 is present in several distributions. The original ticket is here: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40750 > Any thoughts on this? what is the best practice? jonasbn -- pauseid: JONASBN email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog: http://use.perl.org/~jonasbn/journal/
