Re: [jamboost] Perforce Jam release candidate

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-06 16:37:42

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>

> >I hope you're joking. Those rules are aliases for one another.
>
> No, wasn't joking. I didn't know they where aliases :-\ But just
looked at
> the code, I guess they are.
>
> Maybe I don't wan't to deal with that change right now.

I'm working on merging the Perforce changes back into our source right
now. I'll put it on a branch so you can check it out.

> >> Which brings up another issue... Should we eventually replace the
2.3
> >> Jambase with the 2.4 Jambase?
> >
> >We already talked about this a bit in threads starting here:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/message/144
> >and here:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/message/216
> >
> >
> >I am generally in favor of scrapping the older Jambase, since FTJam
has
> >proven to be a dead branch, and since I found a fair amount of
> >questionable code in it. However, there is still the issue of whether
or
> >not we would be losing support for building Jam executables on any
> >compilers. Do you happen to know whether Perforce 2.4 supports
Borland
> >et. al?
>
> Don't know at all... I don't follow the Perforce changes, other than
what
> you post about them.
>
> Maybe the thing to do is wait for the 2.4 release (as opposed to the
RC),
> and then look at that Jambase.

Maybe. No need to make extra work for ourselves.