in reply to A Peeve of Great Pettishness

/me coughs sympatheticly...

...but (oops: opening self to charges of pouring gasoline on fire)... some authors, properly IMO, publish work-in-progress to obtain feedback. I can't fault using sub 1.0 version numbers on those known (or believed) to be IMperfect or INcomplete.

But (reverting to agreeability_mode) yeah; numbering a release with a sub 1.0 version number if it passes testing and is ready to do (something | anything ) useful seems to me to be inappropriate, and likely founded on "going along with current style" or "low self-esteem."

so, ++; RANT ON!!, dwildesnl.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: A Peeve of Great Pettishness
by DrHyde (Prior) on Oct 31, 2005 at 10:50 UTC
    I have <looks at search.cpan> four distributions on the CPAN with version numbers less than 1. Three I inherited from other people and have decided to keep their version numbering scheme, on the grounds that suddenly jumping from version 0.12 to version 1 would be just as misleading about the state of the software as it is to leave it alone. The fourth - Data::Transactional - is all my own work and is at version 0.1 because it has at least one documented major bug, perhaps one documented minor bug, and it solicits feedback about the internals (of which I have received none).

    On the other hand, the interface is stable, it does something useful, and it passes its tests.

[reply]

In Section Meditations