Message-ID: <357A8E24.2E87ADCF@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 13:57:08 +0100
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Organization: A.L. Group plc
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: APACHE_RELEASE no longer always increasing?
References: <199806061814.OAA15269@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> Well, I think I would have voted +1... :/

No reason we can't fix it now. :-)

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/