Re: Gtk2-Perl 2.25.1

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

On Nov 8, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:

> Vincent Untz wrote:
> > I'm wondering (and I don't know if it's a good idea or not): with the
> > move of the svn, are you considering also releasing the tarballs on  
> > the
> > GNOME FTP like all other modules? This would mean you just release  
> > your
> > tarballs and the release scripts will do all the magic to find  
> > them :-)
>
> Our plan is to do the move in steps: first the code, then the  
> tarballs, then the web site.

[snip description of issues]

> muppet, what do you think?

The tarball names on CPAN are pretty much set.  As a perl binding, we  
are beholden to the rules of the perl community.  However, i see no  
real problem with renaming the tarballs when they get uploaded to the  
gnome ftp server.

We initially picked version numbers that are plain floating point  
numbers rather than the dotted triples for exactly the reasons you  
outlined --- compatibility with CPAN, and avoiding the need for a non- 
core dependency.  We probably should've used the old-school perl  
versioning of  x.yyyzzz from the beginning, instead of x.yyz, as we  
are limited to micro versions 0 through 9.

The question of whether to sync the binding modules' versions with  
their upstream counterparts' versions came up early on.  As i recall,  
we decided that matching version numbers was unnecessary, because we  
support all stable releases of the upstream with all stable releases  
of the binding.  Therefore, the typical rationale that you need to  
know which version of the binding is compatible with which version of  
the upstream is a bit moot; always use the latest binding, regardless  
of what upstream you have.  This is somewhat complicated by support  
for new symbols, but that's another discussion.

Luckily, the modules themselves are at versions that start with 1, so  
we could move to a new versioning scheme without apparent backward  
movement by bumping the first number to 2.  If we did this, i would  
choose the x.yyyzzz scheme.

But i, too, am reluctant to change the version number scheme.  I can  
be convinced, but it has to be good.  ;-)


--
Applause is an addiction, like heroin or checking your email.
  -- Sideshow Mel