[Bioperl-l] CPAN Versioning, was [something else]

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Fri Nov 17 13:30:20 EST 2006

On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:

> Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
>> Can you name the file bioperl-1.5.2-RC_4.tar.gz and have it picked  
>> up as
>> a developer release?
> I didn't try that variation, but have decided to go with
> bioperl-1.5.2_004-RC.tar.gz which certainly is picked up as a  
> developer
> release.
> I've outlined the numbering scheme here:
> http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/ 
> Making_a_BioPerl_release#Making_the_distribution_directory

I noticed that Module::Build now has a developer release that uses this:


So the '_###' seems to be key.  If so I see a versioning dilemma that  
depends on what we want to call rel 1.5.2.

If we used 'bioperl-1.5.2_004' for the RCs, then logically the final  
dev release would be 'bioperl-1.5.2', which would not be designated a  
dev release on CPAN (if the underscore rule holds up, that is).

If we plan on having CPAN designate it a developer release (which I  
think is the consensus among the developers, since 1.6 would be the  
stable release), then the final 1.5.2 version would be something like  
'bioperl-1.5_02' or 'bioperl-1.5_002'.  RCs would be '1.5_02-RC#'.   
Or maybe even '1.5_02_##', which a few modules seem to use.

However, even that is tricky; what do we call rel 1.6.1, a point  
release in the stable series?  'bioperl-1.6_2' would then be a  
developer release!  Argghhh!

Christopher Fields
Postdoctoral Researcher
Lab of Dr. Robert Switzer
Dept of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list