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 ==================*/
