On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:58:14AM +0100, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> At 00.41 31/10/02 +0000, you wrote:
> >> Is the "official" version number (i.e. 0.5.0.3) displayed anywhere in the=
> > web interface? In the General=20
> >> Information, I see:
> >>=20
> >> Version Information
> >> Node Version 0.5
> >> Protocol Version 1.46
> >> Build Number 527
> >> CVS Revision 1.90.2.2
> >>=20
> >> It would be nice if there was some consistency in how builds/versions wer=
> >e named. My freenet node is telling me=20
> >> it's version 0.5, even though it is 0.5.0.3 and the build number doesn't =
> >increment every time. Should I be going=20
> >> by the CVS Revision to know if I have the latest? If so, then announcemen=
> >ts maybe should use those numbers since=20
> >> the web gateway does display it correctly.
> >The build number is the important thing; maybe it should have been
> >incremented for 0.5.0.3. Traditionally the build number has only gone up
> >when the node behaviour changes, as opposed to the minor fixes that went
> >into 0.5.0.3 (anon filter fixes, and a fix for the luser mp3 wipe bug,
> >which won't affect existing successfully installed users).
>
> Mattew, I (and not only me) totally disagree with this "traditionally"
> way to release; this not because I have a personal preference, but because
> this cause a *tremendous* waste of time for node operators and all people
> that try to debug their problem with nodes.
Guys, there is an ant task specifically designed for this. See
BuildNumber.
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021031/8c8a9207/attachment.pgp>
