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 Sun, 07 Jun 1998 14:44:48 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > Well, I think I would have voted +1... :/
> 
> No reason we can't fix it now. :-)

Ok, How about if we define it as

   MMNNFFRBB

Where: MM is Major Version number
       NN is Minor Version number
       FF is "fix level"
       R is whether it's beta or final release
       BB is beta level.

Thus, 1.3.1b2 would be: 010301002
and 1.3.4 would be:     010304100

The whole idea of "final releases" being '99' or some other
such number is really counterintuitive IMO. Also, there was/is
no consistancy since, according to the logs, sometimes with
the final release the 'betaseq' number was just bumped by one, and
others up to 99 (which is the "official" way now).

With this technique, even if we wanted to maintain some "knowledge"
of which beta number was the last, going to final would still be
an increasing number (eg: going from 1.4.2b12 to 1.4.2 would be
010402012 -> 010402112, this shows that the final release of
1.4.2 was based on the beta of 1.4.2b12... slick, huh?)

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> -- 
> 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