Thanks for the prompt reply Peter, much appreciated. Is there a way to change the "probably ought to" statement to something a little more definite. i.e. is there a way to formerly request this and get it in to the next build ?
thanks once again OP On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Peter Gummer < peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > OxfordPartnership wrote: > > This seems work and I get a version back, the version reported is : > > $LastChangedRevision: 203 $ > > $LastChangedDate: 2007-04-10 05:17:40 +1000 (Tue, 10 Apr 2007) $ > > > > As this is the parser from the latest beta release of the editor, do > > those values make sense? > > > > Unfortunately, not really. That string represents the last time that the > source file openehr_version.e was committed to the branch of the > ref_impl_eiffel repository from which the current ADL Parser DLL is > built. As the last change to that branch was only a month or two ago, > sadly the so-called version string is wildly inaccurate. > > There have been improvements to how this is handled in the TRUNK of the > ref_impl_eiffel repository. We probably ought to merge those > improvements back into the ADL Parser's current release branch, in order > to avoid this confusion. > > - Peter > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090123/d6b9e9d0/attachment.html>
