Le mercredi 26 décembre 2012 à 17:45, David Golden a écrit :
Basically, Dancer and plugins are doing version numbers and version number comparison wrong. Yes, I am an authority on this. ;-)
We believe you ! :)
My suggestion, given the current state of affairs, is that dancer_version in the 1.999_XX dev series should be hardcoded to 2 in advance of the actual 2.0 release. If you want to be fancy, something like this:
sub dancer_version { Dancer->VERSION lt 2 ? 2 : Dancer->VERSION }
That decouples the version that plugins see from the module versioning.
That's a good idea. Looking at the current code in Dancer.pm I don't understand the code of the VERSION method anyway :) I think sukria agrees to remove the API version thingy. There is also an API version in App.pm that should be removed. And dancer_api_version should go away imho, as I doesn't exist in dancer 1 DSL.
David
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 5:59 PM, damien krotkine <dkrotkine@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
As I understand, Alexis did a dev release of dancer2. The version is 1.9999_01 or something like that.
People and plugins currently uses int(dancer_version) to discover if it's running under Dancer 1 or Dancer 2.
int(1.0000_01) emits a warnings, so to work around that, a ne keyword has been added :
dancer_major_version, which returns what's on the left of the dot in the version number.
Fine, except that : - this keyword has not been added to Dancer v1, so plugins using dancer_major_version will break under Dancer 1 - no advertizing has been made on to what plugins should use (ie continue using int() or use the new keyword)
What's the best solution ?
In my opinion we can : 1/ Release a new Dancer 1, and ask people to use dancer_major_version and require the latest Dancer 1 release (or Dancer 2) : long and cumbersome as we need to potentially modify plugins and contact users and so all
2/ remove dancer_major_version, and change dancer_version so that it returns the version without the _xx at the end. Simple, doesn't need to release D1 again, and nothing to change in plugins.
3/ any idea ?
As you may guess, I'm a big fan of solution 2. If you all agree (especially sukria, as he added dancer_major_version, and maybe he had an other reasons for that), I can make the change.
In my opinion, the longer we stay in the current situation (dancer_major_version only in D2), the more dangerous it is
dams.
_______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list dancer-users@dancer.pm http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
-- David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Take back your inbox! → http://www.bunchmail.com/ Twitter/IRC: @xdg _______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list dancer-users@dancer.pm http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users