[Bioperl-l] Bioperl versioning

Lincoln Stein lincoln.stein at gmail.com
Tue Oct 31 15:24:17 EST 2006


Are you going to go ahead with 1.52_XX ? If so, I will code GBrowse to look
for 1.52 or higher.

Lincoln

On 10/24/06, Chris Fields <cjfields at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> ..
> >
> > 'handle'? I think it shows up as '6.2.13' simply because it was uploaded
> > with the filename Perl6-Pugs-6.2.13.tar.gz
>
> Sorry, my point was that when Audrey T. uses '6.2.13', her $VERSION is
> '6.002013'.  So maybe we should follow a similar convention.  Seems easier
> and less confusing to me, at least.
>
> > As you point out, the code has the kind of $VERSION number we've been
> > suggesting in this thread:
> >
> > > From the Perl6::Pugs source, $VERSION for rel 6.2.13 is '6.002013':
> > >
> > > our $VERSION = 6.002013;
> > >
> > > That's also a very perlish-way to do it.  And there are no developer
> > > versions of Pugs, since it is always under active development.  We
> could
> > try
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > our $VERSION = 1.005002_01;
> >
> > Yes, this was already like one of my suggestions (1.0502_01), but I
> > brought up the concern that 1.05 might be < 1.4.
> >
> > So then we have a question: do we try and fumble a 1.4 compatible number
> > by using 1.60_10, or do we have a clean break, remove 1.4 from CPAN if
> > it causes problems, and go for the 'proper' 1.006000 (1.6.0) with no
> > room for RC numbering, or 1.006000010 (1.6.0.10) - the first final
> > release following some 1.006000_001 (1.6.0.01 == rc1) RCs?
>
> I would go for the clean break if it follows perl/CPAN convention.
> '1.60_10' looks like '1.60.10', not 1.6 or 1.6 RC1, so it's too confusing.
>
> If we can use '1.00600x' for 1.6, 1.6.1, etc, and '1.006000_00x' for 1.6
> RC1, 1.6 RC2 etc then that would be consistent and perl-compatible.
>
> BTW, the reason I looked at Pugs was to see what some of the Perl6
> developers were using.  Who knows; they'll probably change it!
>
> ..
>
> > I don't think it would be a hassle; on the contrary it would be very
> > useful to know the CPAN distribution actually works. I'm very happy with
> > the idea that a release candidate gets fully tested...
>
> So you obviously feel strongly about it!  ;>
>
> I don't have a problem as long as we stick with doing this from now on (
> i.e.
> have a consistent versioning scheme, release policy, CPAN release policy,
> etc).  Would be nice for Jason/Brian/Hilmar to chime in as to the
> reasoning
> behind the older versioning scheme.
>
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
> Dept. of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>



-- 
Lincoln D. Stein
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
1 Bungtown Road
Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724
(516) 367-8380 (voice)
(516) 367-8389 (fax)
FOR URGENT MESSAGES & SCHEDULING,
PLEASE CONTACT MY ASSISTANT,
SANDRA MICHELSEN, AT michelse at cshl.edu


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list