Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Bob
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Review: CGI::Prototype

by perrin (Chancellor)
on Dec 02, 2004 at 15:35 UTC ( #411800=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Review: CGI::Prototype

I've never understood why CPAN authors put their module numbers so low. If the API is complete and it has no known bugs, it is a 1.0 release! I've actually heard developers who do not follow CPAN closely balk at using very common and well-known modules because they have version numbers like 0.17. That's ridiculous.


Comment on Re: Review: CGI::Prototype
Re^2: Review: CGI::Prototype
by Joost (Canon) on Dec 02, 2004 at 16:18 UTC
    Programmers count from 0. :-)

    All versions of my (only) CPAN module had no known bugs when I released them (and the test code to show that the known bugs where fixed). That didn't really mean they had no bugs.

    You point about API changes is valid, but that an API is "complete" doesn't mean it's "done". It takes a LOT of testing and tweaking to get an API "just right" - so I myself prefer to keep the right to make "minor" changes to an API for quite some time.

    The 1.0 version number is arbitrary and for marketing purposes only. The associated software is never bug-free, never finished, and ususally deprecated within a couple of weeks. Programmers should know better than to trust a version number.

      All versions of my (only) CPAN module had no known bugs when I released them (and the test code to show that the known bugs where fixed). That didn't really mean they had no bugs.

      I'm not sure where you're going with that. Everything has bugs.

      You point about API changes is valid, but that an API is "complete" doesn't mean it's "done". It takes a LOT of testing and tweaking to get an API "just right"

      No API is ever done. They always evolve over time. If you do something drastic that breaks backwards compatibility in a big way, you can release 2.0.

      The 1.0 version number is arbitrary and for marketing purposes only.

      Right, which is why everyone should feel free to use it.

      Programmers should know better than to trust a version number.

      And yet they don't. They get scared by low version numbers. And so do their managers. That's why it matters.

Re^2: Review: CGI::Prototype
by FoxtrotUniform (Prior) on Dec 02, 2004 at 23:03 UTC
    I've never understood why CPAN authors put their module numbers so low.

    I'd guess that, at the beginning, it's a confidence issue. I'd think of it as, hey, I'm posting a module that seems to work for me, but it hasn't been widely tested yet: let's not get everyone's hopes up. After that, well, small incremental changes don't really merit a major version number increment, do they?

    I agree with you; it's always rather odd to see stable, mature software with a sub-1.0 version number (slrn, anyone?). Of course, there's plenty of "production" software that really shouldn't be out of alpha yet.

    --
    Yours in pedantry,
    F o x t r o t U n i f o r m

    "Anything you put in comments is not tested and easily goes out of date." -- tye

Re^2: Review: CGI::Prototype
by Juerd (Abbot) on Dec 02, 2004 at 23:46 UTC

    My first version usually is 0.01. And the one after that is 0.02. I continue adding 0.01 for every subsequent release, unless a large portion was rewritten (bump to the next x.x0), or almost everything was rewritten (bump to the next x.00).

    But if a module is at 0.xx even though it's in production use, profiled well, and has no known bugs *after a lot of use*, I might add 1 to the version, so that 0.24 can become 1.24. This is because users do indeed for some reason appear to think that the version number actually has meaning.

    Well, unless you know how a certain author uses the digits available, IT DOESN'T MEAN A THING. Proof: File::Slurp.

    The only rules are that a newer version must have a higher version number, and that the CPAN indexers understand your format.

    Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

Re^2: Review: CGI::Prototype
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 03, 2004 at 18:47 UTC
    My api are numbered by cvs :>
      That can get you in trouble. CPAN version numbers need to be parseable as real numbers, so to CPAN 1.10 is an earlier release than 1.9.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://411800]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-04-20 15:00 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (485 votes), past polls