On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:12:37PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:49:36AM -0700, Jarrod Overson wrote:
> > From a non-perl-centric viewpoint, the vast majority of projects I work
> > with nowadays abide by the semantic versioning concept (your v4) :
> >
> > http://semver.org/
> >
> > You lose the version's value as an actual number, but you gain more
> > standard readability as to what the version means, which is something that
> > I consider more valuable.
>
> You lose that the moment someone decides to rename Linux 2.6.bignum to
> 3.0 for no good reason. So really, no matter what the ideal, in
> practice it doesn't mean a damned thing.
>
Which is why some people have moved to integer versions, based on the date,
with extra digits tacked at the end to allow for multiple releases on
the same day: a package released today would have the version 2012060101.
(to be read as 2012-06-01 release 01).
If that matters, it will remain a 32 bit integer until the year 2147,
at which time we can hope to have solved the issue of version numbers
and integer size for a while. And probably a few other of mankind's
current issues.
These version numbers do not convey any actual meaning, but give you
a very precise notion of how old this module is.
(I'm using the scheme Lars described. Having at least a major version
number allows to convey *some* information.)
--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)
None suffer so much in a war as those who strive to end it.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #51 (Epic))
