Re: [jamboost] Re: bjam --version

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-27 23:34:16

At Wednesday 2003-08-27 00:48, you wrote:
>Victor,
>
>
>Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'll try to remember.
> > People who test things and report bugs are volunteers, too
> > 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. If they had it should be
> > abundantly clear that the --version option is being mishandled (or perhaps,
> > not handled soon enough)
>
>I need not look at any code to figure out how --version is handled. For the
>reasons I've explained in another email, it really could not made to work
>anywhere.

got it... a misunderstanding of what --version means for this program.
every _other_ program I've used reports the version of the binary that is 
executing (a useful thing, don't you think?). If there are many pieces 
that need to be assembled in order to determine the version, I suggest that 
itemizing each "version" of "build number" or "what have you" _as you find 
them_ would be a good plan, then when you've found them all calculate 
whatever the "official marketing" version number is.

>- Volodya
>
>
>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"