"jean-frederic clere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That still doesn't change the fact that whatever is in JK for versioning is
>> utterly complicated, is completely different from what the Apache folks have
>> done so far (look at both 1.3 and 2.0 trees), and I don't want to look up at
>> a manual on how to interpret the va_version.h header every time I have to
>> roll a release, right?
>
> This version handling is like the Linux Kernel version... (but there it is in
> the first lines of the main Makefile).
That's not the best example of code beauty...
> The idea behind the complexity is that we could decide version of protocol
> based on the version containted in version.h file.
Get real, we have ONE protocol.
>> Punky, your ORIGINAL file from December last year looked _MUCH_ better....
>>
>> I'm still -1 on the version currently in CVS. This is how I would like to
>> see things at the end, exactly like Apache 1.3 and 2.0 are doing...
>
> In this case we should both mod_webapp and mod_jk/mod_jk2 version.
I'm not -1ing anything on JK... That code might NEED that complicateness,
and frankly I could care less.. I'm absolutely -1 on that where it concerns
me, namedly, mod_webapp...
Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
