Re: bjam --version

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-18 15:18:37

"Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Ok, I'll try to remember.
> People who test things and report bugs are volunteers, too

So they should have more empathy for other volunteers, not less.

> Sorry for any hurt feelings.
>
> It seems clear to me that nobody _looked_ at the code before
> suggesting that _I_ hadn't followed directions tho.

Which code would you like someone to have inspected that would have a
bearing on whether you followed directions or not? It still seems
apparent from your posting that you were not invoking bjam from within
an extracted Boost.Build tarball.

> If they had it should be abundantly clear that the --version option
> is being mishandled (or perhaps, not handled soon enough)

Your opinion that --version should produce a result under all
circumstances notwithstanding, you only have a right to expect the
behavior that's documented. As long as we are still in the transition
from BBv1 to BBv2, you have to allow for the fact that behavior
described in BBv2 docs may not apply in all contexts.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com