Re: [jamboost] Re: bjam --version

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-18 15:34:09

you're stubborner than I am, and I've had a helluva lot more practice.
I give up.

At Monday 2003-08-18 13:18, you wrote:
>"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
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>jamboost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"