RunRev 2.1

[Robert Brenstein]

Thanks, Ken. I'd guess that it is logical to assume that Rev 2.1 has 
most of its changes done in IDE code and the engine underwent only 
minor improvements. Since some of the IDE features may need (in the 
future) to be tied into specific engine version, we would need a 
clear statement from RunRev that they keep version() and revVersion() 
as they are, and we add mcVersion() to compliment these.

Robert



>Robert,
>
>The "version" returns "2.5.1", and the "buildNumber" returns "1".
>
>
>Ken Ray
>Sons of Thunder Software
>Email: kray at sonsothunder.com
>Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
>
>
>>  From:     Robert Brenstein <rjb at rz.uni-potsdam.de>
>>  Reply-To: metacard at lists.runrev.com
>>  Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 01:45:07 +0200
>>  To:     metacard at lists.runrev.com
>>  Subject: Re: RunRev 2.1
>>
>>>  Robert Brenstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>   I think you misread my email. I did not mean the low-level
>>>>   interaction between the engine and the IDE but keeping track of
>>>>   different versions. MC IDE is now becoming a "product" on its own. I
>>>>   presume that we continue its version numbering regardless of versions
>>>>   of the engine.
>>>
>>>  I see.  I believe the IDE has a version property; if not it would 
>>>be easy to
>>>  add one, and the project leader could be responsible for updating it
>>>  whenever a release is posted.
>>
>>  Hmm, has anyone checked what version() returns for engine of Rev 2.1?
>>  Rev's IDE version is returned by revVersion() if I am not mistaken.
>>  We can add mcVersion() or implement it as a global property, although
>>  the former would be more consistent if RunRev keeps version() and
>>  revVersion().
>>
>>  Robert
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  metacard mailing list
>>  metacard at lists.runrev.com
>>  http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
>
>_______________________________________________
>metacard mailing list
>metacard at lists.runrev.com
>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard