Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Punky Tse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>GOMEZ Henri 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 .... >>> >> >>I tell you why: >> >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=100878406017530&w=2 > > > 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). The idea behind the complexity is that we could decide version of protocol based on the version containted in version.h file. > > 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. > > My idea of -DWEBAPP_VERSION="....." is wrong because it's impossible to > gather that piece of information under Windows when building with Visual > Studio (stupid operating system)... > > Pier > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
