Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall
From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: What about x.y versions instead of x.y.w.z ?
Message-ID: <7284@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 6 Mar 90 02:01:28 GMT
References: <PCG.90Mar5210552@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Reply-To: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 21

In article <PCG.90Mar5210552@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
: I have noticed that Larry Wall tends now to use four part version
: numbers. I would beg him to revert to two part ones; the problem is that
: I tend to keep sources to his works under RCS in the trunk, and my local
: mods as branches (this simplifies the job of reapplying local mods or
: unofficial patches when a new patchlevel or release comes out).
: 
: If the author preempts the use of branch numbers things are going to
: become pretty bleak. The release/patchlevel pair has enough resolution,
: I hope.

I have never used four part version numbers.  I use RCS branch 1, and
sometimes people who don't know better quote that as part of the
version number.  The current version is 3.0, patchlevel 12.  The branch
and branch revision come into it solely because $Log$ in RCS includes it
in the static variable that perl prints out when you do "perl -v".

I've always done things this way.  I suggest you use a different branch
number than 1 if you want to make your own mods.

Larry