in reply to XP for modules

Read the changelog first, tests next, code/docs last. Many hackers are modest and start numbering at 0.01 once they are happy it is good enough to release. IMHO a first release at 1.00 is almost certainly a bad sign.

cheers

tachyon

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: XP for modules
by eserte (Deacon) on Aug 17, 2004 at 08:19 UTC
    On occasion I start with 1.01, mostly if using RCS for versioning and using the $VERSION = sprintf("%d.%02d", q$Revision: 1.1 $ =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)/); style of setting the version. I know, I could somewhere add a "-1" :-)
[reply]
[d/l]

      Offtopic, achtung.

      I think it is a bad practice to base software versions on file revisions. This is a question of «granularity» — whether you really want to have a 1.108 version in two months of hard work or hesitate to commit a small whitespace-only code style fix to your source because it's just too little a change to justify for a new version.

      This is Bad Thing(TM) to say nothing of having multiple (for large values of «multiple») equally important files with totally different revision histories inside one software package with one version number.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion