httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: APACHE_RELEASE no longer always increasing?
Date Sat, 06 Jun 1998 18:14:08 GMT
Well, I think I would have voted +1... :/

Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > >
> > > apache_1.3b7: src/include/httpd.h (line 400):
> > >
> > > #define APACHE_RELEASE 1030007
> > >
> > > apache_1.3.0: src/include/httpd.h (line 400):
> > >
> > > #define APACHE_RELEASE 1030000
> > >
> > > Is this a problem?
> > >
> > 
> > The last 2 digits are "defined" as the beta release... Since this is the
> > real version, it's no longer a beta so they must be '00'... It _is_
> > counter-intuitive since the number is actually _less_ when comparing
> > a beta to a final release, but I don't think it's used for anything
> > particular...
> 
> That's why I wanted to add an extra digit (0 for beta, 1 for release),
> so it would go from 10300007 to 10300100. But people seemed to think it
> was somehow better to use a counterintuitive numbering scheme.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
> Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
> and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
> A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
> London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/
> 
> WE'RE RECRUITING! http://www.aldigital.co.uk/recruit/
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

Mime
View raw message