Shlomi Fish wrote:
earlier today I uploaded XML-LibXML-1.99 and since the 1.* releases had two
trailing digits, the next version will be past 2. This is a good to switch to a
better versioning scheme, with more digits after the first dot, which will give
us more air to breath.
I'm asking you what the advantages and disadvantages of the following schemes:
1. "2.xxyy" - "xx" are the major/new-feature versions, while "yy" are for bug
fixes/maintenance versions.
2. "2.xxxyyy" - same as before only with three digits each.
3. "2.xxyyy" - same as before only a hybrid approach that will give a zero in
the middle in case there are less than 100 maintenance versions.
Doesn't matter which one of the above you select, if you keep the same scheme through all your releases, and your
version is a number. I'd vote for #2 if you ask me. Or even 2.xxx. If you really need next major version, you can make
it 3.xxx.
4. "2.x.y" - I use this for my open source C projects and some of my CPAN
modules and perl 5 and Parrot use it as well. Is it well supported with the
CPAN toolchain?
This is the worst idea someone could ever do about versions in Perl. This and v2.x.y. Don't use it. 2.x.y is not a
number, 2.x.y != '2.x.y', comparison is tricky, etc etc etc. Especially if you already have 1.xx version numbering for
older versions of XML-LibXML.
--
S.T.
