[pmwiki-users] want opinions on a new cookbook recipe format

Joachim Durchholz jo at durchholz.org
Tue Mar 7 02:26:50 CST 2006

Patrick R. Michaud schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:01:05PM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> Patrick R. Michaud schrieb:
>>> I'm not sure that it's obvious that we mean version of the recipe,
>>> someone could mistake it to mean "version of PmWiki".  This is
>>> what "Version:" currently means in PITS.
>> ...hmm... thinking of versions: there should be an entry that says for 
>> which versions of PmWiki the recipe is supposed (or known?) to work. 
>> E.g. Tested-On: or Prerequisites:, where each header lists which recipes 
>> and what versions of recipes/PmWiki need to be installed.
> There's already a "Prerequisites:" header in the template for
> exactly this reason.

I saw that after writing my post. My bad.

> Perhaps instead of "Version:" or "Recipe-version:" we should just use 
> "Date:" or "Updated:"?

That would force recipe writers into using the date as a version string. 
Not all will be happy with that.

Not that I'm totally adverse to "Recipe-version:". I just think it's 
redundant, and I'd like to avoid that. I don't think that
   Version: 0.7.11
   Prerequisites: PmWiki 2.1.5
leaves much doubt about what the "Version:" header leaves much room for 
doubt. (Suggestion: set up a template page for new recipes, and place 
the current stable version of PmWiki into the "Prerequisites:" line.)


More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list