Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Journal of ambs (3914)

Thursday December 31, 2009
01:41 PM

Modules versioning

[ #40063 ]

For some time that Perl modules are numbered with a major version, a minor version, and sometimes, a alpha/beta numbering.

Lately some modules adopted the usage of a serialized date. One of the latest was Regexp::Common. Do not stress, Abigail, nothing against it.

Now, the question are: is it useful? Should it be used just for old and stable modules like Regexp::Common or should we use it from the beginning?

I think it might gets useful. Normally it is hard to know in what direction to number distributions. Especially when you get to .99 and do not want to change the major version in the next version.

But then, probably we should not use that numbering scheme for new modules. Just because you never know if you will need to change drastically the interface. And then, a major number version change might get useful.

Any thought?

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I started using a date as the major version with Business::ISBN::Data [cpan.org] because the data are linked directly to particular releases from the ISBN Agency.

    Beyond that I might use the date for something that is not a major version, but I just finished a project that had a pain point with version.pm because it used too many digits in the version, including major and minor versions, the svn revision, and build number. The svn version got to six digits (and maybe seven within a year in the shared repo), and the bui

  • I'm not a big fan of version numbers meaning anything but "newer," but I'd always suggest 1.YYYYMMDD over YYYYMMDD because later if you decide that 20100720 is a terrrible version number, you're kind of stuck with it. If you used 1.YYYYMMDD, you just bump to 2.000.

    --
    rjbs