Reflect change in CPAN releasor

[jkeenan]

On CPAN Time-Piece has a new release from a new releasor. For consistent results out of 'Porting/core-cpan-diff', we should have changed the CPANID of the releasor in Maintainers.pl before synching. We'll correct that here and standardize all $VERSIONs in cpan/Time-Piece to indicate we're now a bit ahead of CPAN.

• This set of changes does not require a perldelta entry.

[leonerd]

I don't get why we need to bump these all to an _01 version. Is it not sufficient simply to change the user ID in Maintainers.pl?

I was slightly surprised that it didn't update that when I ran sync-with-cpan myself in fact.

[jkeenan]

I don't get why we need to bump these all to an _01 version. Is it not sufficient simply to change the user ID in Maintainers.pl?

It might be "sufficient" with respect to getting the porting tests to DWIM. But if we were to do that, at some point in the future someone would ask, "Why is the version number in Maintainers.pl different from that in the code?"

I think our criterion here should be "What will cause the least confusion going forward?" (I acknowledge that some may feel the criterion should be "What entails the fewest changed keystrokes.)

I was slightly surprised that it didn't update that when I ran sync-with-cpan myself in fact.

This is a small flaw with sync-with-cpan that you become sensitized to once you've run the program several times.

[haarg]

With this PR, the data in Maintainers.pl refers to a release that doesn't exist. That seems rather confusing to me.

The version number in Time/Piece.pm is apparently currently wrong, but if that was fixed and the releaser was fixed in Maintainers.pl, wouldn't all the data be correct and not confusing?

[jkeenan]

I don't get why we need to bump these all to an _01 version. Is it not sufficient simply to change the user ID in Maintainers.pl?

It might be "sufficient" with respect to getting the porting tests to DWIM. But if we were to do that, at some point in the future someone would ask, "Why is the version number in Maintainers.pl different from that in the code?"

I think our criterion here should be "What will cause the least confusion going forward?" (I acknowledge that some may feel the criterion should be "What entails the fewest changed keystrokes.)

I was slightly surprised that it didn't update that when I ran sync-with-cpan myself in fact.

This is a small flaw with sync-with-cpan that you become sensitized to once you've run the program several times.

Yes, I think we could live with that.

[leonerd]

Looks like @steve-m-hay fixed this in ecb78df so likely this PR can be closed now?

It seems I forgot to remove the lines out of customized.dat, so the sync-to-cpan script didn't pull in the updated files. That's now been fixed.

[jkeenan]

Looks like @steve-m-hay fixed this in ecb78df so likely this PR can be closed now?

Yes.