Re: Take care with version numbers (eg DBD::Pg)

On 07/08/10 17:08, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>
>>> Looks like it should have been 2.6.0:
>>>
>>>   2.6.0 = 2.006001
>>>   2.17.1 = 2.017001
>>>
>>>   2.006001<   2.017001
>>>
>>> Version number suck. And clearly, three-version numbers suck harder.
>>
>> I think, the best way out would be a hard consensus and CPAN reindex.
>
> The closest thing to a concensus is represented in David's blog post:
>
>    http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/369/version-numbers-should-be-boring/

Have a look how David use the version numbers in Module::Build - he seems
to be unable to be strict on himself (no critic, just mentioned).
He describes how module authors can deal with the "non-boring" version
numbering in Perl ...

Best example for "can't have everything".

Do I understand the intension of the original mail right, that it should
start a new wave of enlightenment about version objects?

Jens