Latest Prototype here: http://prototypejs.org/assets/2008/1/25/prototype-1.6.0.2.js has following lines at the top: var Prototype = { Version: '1.6.0.2',
Isn't this enough? I think using revision number is mostly replacing one readable number with another unreadable. I believe versions are already mapped to specific revisions, and using intermediate revisions is a dangerous way to go. But if someone really needs this - why not? Except that usually such specific needs aren't put in the core, afaik. > > I recently wrote a patch for Scriptaculous that allows version > checking beyond the x.x.x scope. It allows to check for 1.6.0.2 > instead of just 1.6.0, this will help to inform people when they use > incompatible version of prototype/scriptaculous. > > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10966 > > Tobie suggested to add the svn changeset number to Prototype. I think > that is a much better way to go. Adding something like > Prototype.Revision will help Scriptaculous and other extensions to > write proper version checks. What do you think, is it something worth > adding? > > > -- arty ( http://arty.name ) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
