> I recently published a new module on CPAN, starting off with a vanilla version number of 1.00
Well done for not starting with 1.0.0. :) CPAN versioning is something of a dark art, as I discovered when attempting to offer some general CPAN Module Versioning advice at:
In that node, I advised starting at 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, ... and only when you've finally produced a stable, production quality API, on which users have come to depend, to indicate that by bumping the module version to 1.00. At least that seems the most popular approach in the Perl community. See that node's "CPAN Versioning Refs" section for why you should avoid a 1.2.3 versioning style.
> if I adopt a more sensible date-base versioning scheme, such as v1.22.242 (major version, year of century, day of year)
Why is this more sensible? Who endorses this scheme? Which well-known CPAN modules use it? Update: Re^2: Module version numbers best practice (meaning--) by tye cautions that using dates as version numbers runs into problems when trying to assign meaning to version numbers.
In reply to Re: Help with PAUSE mechanics - replacing a bad module
by eyepopslikeamosquito
in thread Help with PAUSE mechanics - replacing a bad module
by PUCKERING
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |