Hi Artemy,

The version number is just a pain to parse.

A build number also happens to be much more "machine" readable, which
is the use case here.

I'd like to have other core members' opinion on this.

And contrary to what I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure if the svn
changset number is the way to go as we sometimes backport bug fixes to
earlier versions of Prototype.



On Feb 3, 4:39 pm, "artemy tregoubenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Latest Prototype 
> here:http://prototypejs.org/assets/2008/1/25/prototype-
> has following lines at the top:
> var Prototype = {
>    Version: '',
> 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
> > 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 prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to