Alternatives to version numbering

[Abigail]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 03:20:15PM +0000, paddy at panici.net wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:34:31PM +0100, Abigail wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:17:15PM +0000, paddy at panici.net wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:54:51PM +0100, Abigail wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:22:25PM +1100, Toby Corkindale wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > What if you have a module that you want to use, and it says it requires Perl
> > > > > 5.8.8 - but you have Perl 5.8.1 with vendor patches on your system - maybe it
> > > > > includes the fixes or functionality the module author wants? 
> > > > > Wouldn't it be nice if their requirements had been expressed in a way that
> > > > > dealt with that?
> > > > 
> > > > No.
> > > > 
> > > > If I get a module from CPAN, and it says it needs 5.8.8, and I have 5.8.1,
> > > > I'm pretty certain it ain't going to work. Doesn't take much effort,
> > > > easy to check. OTOH, the module may list its 1320 pieces of Perl it
> > > > uses. Do you really think I would bother checking each and every piece
> > > > of functionality?  
> > > 
> > > with a program, maybe ??
> > 
> > You mean "make test"?
> > 
> 
> I wanted to express the twisted joy I experience at the phrase "make test", 
> but instead I found this: hikaru dorodango


I had no idea what 'hikaru dorodango' was, so I Googled for it.

I'm now left with one question: why?



Abigail
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://london.pm.org/pipermail/london.pm/attachments/20080104/12fb4967/attachment.pgp