You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> on 2010/09/13 11:51:41 UTC
6.0.29 version number glitch
I just spotted that in a couple of places 6.0.29 reports itself as
6.0.0.29. Looking at the tag, it appears
version.patch=29
was used rather than
version.build=29
It isn't a major issue as in most places the version property is used
(which is set to 6.0.29).
Just something to keep in mind when we start thinking about timing for
6.0.30.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: 6.0.29 version number glitch
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
On 09/13/2010 11:51 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> I just spotted that in a couple of places 6.0.29 reports itself as
> 6.0.0.29. Looking at the tag, it appears
>
> version.patch=29
>
> was used rather than
>
> version.build=29
>
> It isn't a major issue as in most places the version property is used
> (which is set to 6.0.29).
>
> Just something to keep in mind when we start thinking about timing for
> 6.0.30.
+1
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org