I'm adding this review mainly to boost the score of the Rose suite, this suite is an awesome utility, and deserves a better score. I find the reviews criticizing the methodology in which this suite was released, to be completely unhelpful, and worse may deter people from using this tool in spite of it's wonderful and powerful capabilities.
I discussed this on the module-authors list. I initially wanted to upload everything as a single distribution, like Maypole, Bricolage, or any other "branded" framework on CPAN. But some of the Rose::* modules are useful in isolation (e.g., the HTML objects) so I was persuaded to break things up. Breaking things up also lets me start to release things as they are done, rather than having to wait until the whole suite is ready for release.
So I'm faced with the problem of how to version the suite as a whole, yes, but more importantly, where to even *talk* about the suite as a whole. Bundle::Rose isn't a useful place for suite-wide documentation because it doesn't actually get installed anywhere.
I settled on Rose.pm, where I currently describe the development policy and will later outline the philosophy of the entire suite. I think a "documentation + version" module isn't all that awful, and actually solves a problem in this case. As a result, "perldoc Rose" shows what the user expects it to show: an explanation of the entire Rose suite.
Regarding the comment by Mark Thomas: "If you've got modules that could be useful outside of Rose, they shouldn't be in the Rose namespace." The problem is that the modules that are useful outside of Rose still rely on other Rose modules (i.e. have them as prerequisites), which makes them realistically "Rose-related" even if they theoretically might not seem to be.