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 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
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.
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>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"
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk