--As of June 1, 2015 2:11:47 PM +0100, David Cantrell is alleged to have
said:
And given that there is no standard way of assigning meaning to the
various levels of dottiness, using version strings with multiple dots in
is pointless. If there were any benefit at all from using them I might
be more inclined to respect them, but there are no benefits, therefore
their use is a bug, as is the existence of version.pm. Unfortunately
it's a bug that we have to keep for compatibility with a vast amount of
code out there, but please, don't make the situation any worse by
writing code containing the bug.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
There is no standard way of assigning meaning to *any* system of version
numbers, that I know of. I'd say 'higher means newer', but I think I can
find examples of even that being false. (I know I can find examples of
'higher means more features'.)
They mean what they mean to the author of the code. *Many* projects use
MAJOR.MINOR.REVISION, where 'Major' is API/User interface changes, 'Minor'
is features and small changes, and 'Revision' is bugfixes and security
patches. It's probably the most common version number scheme I've seen out
in the wild, and therefore as standard as anything I've seen. Perl itself
uses it. Calling using it a 'bug' is calling the plurality (if not
outright majority) of software out there being bugged by design.
Daniel T. Staal
---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------
