"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]>