Re: bjam --v2 isn't working for me

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 11:00:09

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> and what's wrong with 3.1.50?
>> at least we don't think two _different_ things are the same
>
> Except that number which increases too often becomes not very meaningfull to 
> users. Maybe, we should be using internal "revision" number which is not 
> exposed in any way.

I don't understand your concern, not at all. Here we have evidence
in front of us that a change in the version number would've been
meaningful.

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