[Bioperl-l] Bioperl versioning

Nathan S. Haigh n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk
Mon Oct 23 14:06:16 EDT 2006


Sendu Bala wrote:
> Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
>   
>> I believe the link to the documentation above describes a common CPAN
>> versioning scheme as follows:
>>
>> 1.00, 1.10, 1.11, 1.20, 1.30, 1.31, 1.32
>>
>> Therefore version 1.5 of Bioperl would be: 1.50 and version 1.5.2 would
>> be better as 1.52. Then to indicate that the 1.5 series is a developer
>> release, you append the underscore and at least 2 digits. Thus resulting
>> in the following: Bioperl 1.5 would be 1.50_01 and 1.5.2 would be
>> 1.52_01. The only thing i'm unsure about would be when does the _01 get
>> incremented? I suspect we would probably not increment this number since
>> each release would be an increment of the minor release number e.g.
>> 1.52_01, 1.53_01, 1.54_01 etc.
>>
>> Although I'm still not sure how this versioning would affect bioperl 1.4
>> since 1.4 uses a non-standard versioning scheme :o(
>>     
>
> Ok, I'm going to go ahead and call it 1.52_01 then. Surely 1.60 will be 
> treated higher than 1.4? Anyway, we can cross that bridge when we get 
> there, but this seems appropriate now.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Sendu.
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>   
Just tried the suggested:
perl -MExtUtils::MakeMaker -le 'print MM->parse_version(shift)'
bioperl-1-5-2/Bio/Root/Version.pm

To see how it parses the various different version schemes - here are
the results:
1.5       -> 1.5
1.4       -> 1.4
1.60      -> 1.60
1.05_01   -> 1.0501
1.5_01    -> 1.501
1.50_01   -> 1.5001

Nath


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list