Re: Fwd: Module update for MARC::Record

On 1/18/07, Cory Snavely <[email protected]> wrote:
> As an administrator who doesn't use the module but is waiting for it to
> be packaged on CPAN to more easily provide updates to users, I have to
> say this is all great.
>
> I see no strong reason to bump the version to 2.0.0, but I have no
> objection either, especially if that feels appropriate to those who know
> the code and features.

I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but I'd like to see the new
stuff more widely tested before it gets a stable looking version
number.  If most users (within the sound of my voice) are actually the
CVS version and not having problems with it, then I think it's safe to
avoid the x.0.0 bump.

Anyone out there using the current CVS, please respond (either way)!

>
> I would definitely object to a rename (i.e., Marc::Record2)--that would
> just cause breakage, from my perspective.
>

Of course!  That was my objection too, and why I accepted the offer
(push, edsu?) for maintainership.  Most important to me is getting it
out there un-borked.

> Cory Snavely
> University of Michigan Library IT Core Services
>
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 14:48 -0500, Mike Rylander wrote:
> > So it is written, so it shall be done.
> >
> > I think, because of the number and size of the changes involved, it
> > would be good to stamp the next version of MARC::Record as 2.0.0.
> > There's a good bit of stuff that hasn't been very widely tested,
> > though I know Evergreen and Koha use it on a daily basis, and a x.0.0
> > version number implies newness.
> >
> > It doesn't seem too off the mark (heh...) anyway, since the name
> > MARC::Record2 (and variants) has been bandied about quietly in the
> > past.
> >
> > Thoughts/comments/sharp-sticks-in-the-eye?
> >
>
>


-- 
Mike Rylander
[email protected]
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org