From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 5:25 PM
> On Friday 20 July 2001 15:14, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 5:08 PM
> >
> > > > We have also dropped the subrevision that was available in
> > > > apache1.3. This seems very wrong to me. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > I can't parse this, what subrevision.
> >
> > the APACHE_RELEASE 10319100 constant.
> >
> > this could easily be adapted to the model I just described...
> >
> > 200xx000 devel
> > 200xx001 alpha_1
> > 200xx002 alpha_2
> > 200xx003 alpha_3
> > 200xx101 beta_1
> > 200xx200 release
> >
> > 200xx201 and later --- would not be not our doing.
>
> We weren't using that anywhere. Also, keeping this means that we are
> storing revision information in two places, the server-string, and
> the REVISION macro,
Yes, and so? The release branch model would alternately allow us to change that
primary version to "2.0.x-alpha-1", "2.0.x-alpha-2", "2.0.x-beta-1" and finally
"2.0.x-gold". That would also be a reasonable solution.
> oh, and the MMN. :-(
Which you forgot to bump (see http://dev.apache.org/how-to-release.html 2. Note:)
