On 01/06/2015 17:48, Daniel Staal wrote:
--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.
So can I - I've reported them to a few CPAN authors, who have said
"oops, thanks" and fixed it. And then there's Windows, of course. 95,
98, 2000, other stuff, 7. Brilliant!
> (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.
But even projects that do that don't do it consistently. Linux went from
2.6.something to 3 as a birthday present, not because of any massive
architectural or feature change.
It's probably the most common version number scheme
I've seen out in the wild
I'm under the impression that the most common is numbers, going up over
time.
> 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.
I'm happy with that.
--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing
Perl: the only language that makes Welsh look acceptable
