Adrian Howard wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005, at 11:40, David Cantrell wrote:
The script that generates it doesn't change. The data that it mangles
into a module is the bit that changes.
Can you add a version number to the data?
Yep, did that last night. It's (eg) 1.20050420.
I dug through my mail and fo
> I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either side -
so I'd do whatever you're comfortable with myself.
In my case I tend to use synchronised version numbers. For big APIs (20+
classes) I often use Class::Autouse to recursively load them.
If two subsequent versions of the dist chang
David Cantrell wrote:
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes from
though. It has no version number because the
entire file is generated from a *real
What I'm moving towards is what SVK does. It has an SVK::Version module
which simply defines $SVK::VERSION. Then in other modules you can write:
use SVK::Version; our $VERSION = $SVK::VERSION;
That way it will be picked up by most $VERSION scanners.
See my post further up about syncron
On 19 Apr 2005, at 11:40, David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
The script that generates it doesn't change. The data that it mangles
into a module is the bit that changes.
Can you add a version number to the data?
So I'll take the suggestion of putting MMDD into a version number.
But then wasn't the
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes from
though. It has no version number because the
entire file is generated from a *really* dumb
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:00:23PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >Personally I prefer separate version numbers per-module, but some
> >people don't. I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either
> >side - so I'd do whatever you're
On Apr 18, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
Personally I prefer separate version numbers per-module, but some
people don't. I've yet to read anything /really/ convincing for either
side - so I'd do whatever you're comfortable with myself.
I used to do it per-module, but then I kept forge
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:03:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>> 1) Am I correct to seperate the package version (1.3004) from the
A small correction -- 1.3004 would be the distribution version, (not
mentioned as $...::VERSION in any package).
On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes
from
though. It has no version number because the
entire file is generated from a *really* dumb
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:03:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> 1) Am I correct to seperate the package version (1.3004) from the
> versions of the several modules contained therein - and if not, where
> should the package version number come from? and
There is no correct here. As long as eac
11 matches
Mail list logo
