Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 10493 invoked by uid 6000); 7 Jun 1998 00:48:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 10486 invoked from network); 7 Jun 1998 00:48:15 -0000 Received: from devsys.jagunet.com (206.156.208.6) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 7 Jun 1998 00:48:15 -0000 Received: (from jim@localhost) by devsys.jaguNET.com (8.8.8/jag-2.4) id UAA19809 for new-httpd@apache.org; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:48:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <199806070048.UAA19809@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: APACHE_RELEASE no longer always increasing? To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:48:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Marc Slemko" at Jun 6, 98 03:07:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Marc Slemko wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, 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... > > No, go back and look at how Roy defined it. The last two digits are not > defined just as the beta release, but they are supposed to increase by one > from the last beta to the first non-beta. > This is how it's defined in httpd.h: /* Numeric release version identifier: major minor bugfix betaseq * Always increases along the same track as the source branch. */ #define APACHE_RELEASE 1030101 Note that it says 'betaseq' which to my adled mind means "beta sequence". It does not say something like "release sequence" or "beta number if beta but if not beta then 1plus whatever the last beta was." If the original discussion was different, then so what? It's kind of foolish to expect people to read the code and then spend time pouring over the archives to see if the comments in the code are correct. Now it says that it always increases along the same track as the source branch, but 1030000 (which is 1.3.0) IS greater than 1020700 (which is 1.2.7)... logically, any code that uses this should (1) instead use MMN if really that bothered and (2) should be smart enough to "ignore" the last 2 digits since they signify the beta sequence. The only "bits" worth notice are the first 5 -- =========================================================================== 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"