Re: cvs commit: apache/src CHANGES httpd.h

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>]

>>   Note that 1.2b11 would have been 1020011 and 1.2.0 would be 1020012,
>>   since the beta sequence numbers are actually X.X.0 releases.
>
>Hmmm ... that's a little artificial - how about jnnffrbb where j,n,f,b
>are as above and r=1 for a release and 0 for a beta. So, 1.2b11 would be
>10200011 and 1.2.0 would be 10200100.

Think of it terms of little changes along a single path.  The change
from 1.2b11 to 1.2.0 is actually the smallest change possible.  In my
view, it is just another beta.

....Roy

Re: cvs commit: apache/src CHANGES httpd.h

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> >>   Note that 1.2b11 would have been 1020011 and 1.2.0 would be
> 1020012,
> >>   since the beta sequence numbers are actually X.X.0 releases.
> >
> >Hmmm ... that's a little artificial - how about jnnffrbb where
> j,n,f,b
> >are as above and r=1 for a release and 0 for a beta. So, 1.2b11 would
> be
> >10200011 and 1.2.0 would be 10200100.
>
> Think of it terms of little changes along a single path.  The change
> from 1.2b11 to 1.2.0 is actually the smallest change possible.  In my
> view, it is just another beta.

True, but in my scheme I can generate the correct number without knowing
any history - in yours, I have to remember what the last beta was. Both
have the desired property (monotonically increasing). Also, in my scheme
the function is invertible - yours is not.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email:
ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author