On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
> No, CVS is kind-of brain-dead about this. I suggest you use sprintf to
> properly format the version number with appropriate number of 0s.
>
> Although, with those version numbers, it might be a little late.
See, that's the problem. We're up in the hundreds. Maybe we should've
started formatting these with '%04d' way back when but that certainly
wouldn't help now.
We _could_ just jack up the first number, but that'd be a bit odd given
that Mason itself is only at 1.1201.
Or we could just use the CVS revision as an integer, not a float. That is
weirder in some ways, but will just work right forever.
-dave
/*==================
www.urth.org
we await the New Sun
==================*/
|