Re: [jamboost] Re: bjam --v2 isn't working for me

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 21:33:28

At Tuesday 2004-03-02 08:16, you wrote:
>David Abrahams wrote:
>
> > > This means you have to rebuilt bjam again :-(
> > > I haven't yet decided if bumping version on all such changes is a
> > > worthwhile, since "native rules" are for optimization and we're likely to
> > > add quite a lot of them. If we bump version each time we'll get something
> > > like 3.1.50 in no time ;-)
> >
> > So what? What's the point of having a version number if we don't use
> > it?
>
>It's bumped for V2 releases, if there are changes that V2 depends upon. Do 
>you
>have to bump version number after adding every single native rule?

will the program behave differently given the same input?
if the answer is yes, then, IMO, the version number MUST change.

>- Volodya
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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