"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Punky, I appreciate your effort, but IMO, wa_version.h is way
>> too utterly
>> complicated. I'd add -DWEBAPP_VERSION="xxxxx" to CFLAGS from
>> the autoconf
>> magicness, and go from there...
>
> Hum, I just commited wa_version.h and it's really similar to
> what Jean-Frederic proposed and commited to mod_jk.
>
> And it's what httpd 2.0 (ap_release.h) use ....
Well, it seriously look ugly though... Ok, I admit it might be a PITA cuz in
Windows we can't simply do a `cat VERSION` and get that number in somewhere,
but boy that wa_version header looks ugly...
Just the fact that we somehow have an "area to modify" and one not, _is_
complicating things around...
Secondly, I don't want to have alpha/beta/gamma/whatever compiled in the
code: for releasing purpose, a code is x.x.x-dev if it's not associated with
a tag, and x.x.x when it actually _IS_ associated with a tag...
When we tag a release, we call it 1.2.0, and then depending on how "well" it
goes, we can promote it from beta to gamma to whatever, but we will NOT
rebuild the binaries...
I'll commit a patch...
Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
