FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marshall Roch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: April 18, 2005 5:44:26 PM PDT
To: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: jesse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam
Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Sean M.Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Apr 17, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
http://dynapi.sourceforge.net/dynapi/
Perhaps, But then the mail lists are simply hosted by SourceForge.
Ick.
Sorry, the point was more "drag these guys into this" as they have
obviously
thought about the problem of includes and library paths.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:00:23PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >Personally I prefer separate version numbers per-module, but some
> >people don't. I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either
> >side - so I'd do whatever you're
On Apr 18, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
Personally I prefer separate version numbers per-module, but some
people don't. I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either
side - so I'd do whatever you're comfortable with myself.
I used to do it per-module, but then I kept forge
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:03:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>> 1) Am I correct to seperate the package version (1.3004) from the
A small correction -- 1.3004 would be the distribution version, (not
mentioned as $...::VERSION in any package).
On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes
from
though. It has no version number because the
entire file is generated from a *really* dumb
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:03:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> 1) Am I correct to seperate the package version (1.3004) from the
> versions of the several modules contained therein - and if not, where
> should the package version number come from? and
There is no correct here. As long as eac
On 17 Apr 2005, at 13:47, David A. Golden wrote:
[snip]
2) A metric to estimate the quality of a distribution for authors to
compare their work against a subjective standard in the hopes that
authors strive to improve their Kwalitee scores. In this model,
faking Kwalitee is irrelevant, because
My apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but it seems like the
least-worst option of all the perlish lists I'm on :-)
I'm not sure if I'm using version numbers properly. For example, I
recently released a package Number-Phone-1.3004 to the CPAN. That
number comes because it contains th
On 17 Apr 2005, at 11:09, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:24:01AM +, Smylers wrote:
Negative quality for anybody who includes a literal tab character
anywhere in the distro's source!
Negative quality for anyone whose files appear to have been edited in
emacs!
Ow! Coffee snorted do
Michael Graham wrote:
If someone were to take over maintenance of your module, or they were to
fork it, or they were submitting patches to you, then they would want
these tools and tests, right? How would they get them?
By asking for them?
It is my experience that when someone takes over maintenan
11 matches
Mail list logo
