Re: [jamboost] Re: bjam patch to provide necessary info for process_jam_log

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-11 02:06:03

Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:

> > And who is going to track this down next time somebody adds a similar
> > rule to their bjam file?
>
> To make it clear: I'm not insisting that the problem should be fixed
> this particular way. What I'm strongly opposite to is rejecting a
> possibly correct, at large, fix on the basis that a local workaround
> for one particular instance of the problem is possible. We've spent a
> considerable enough amount of time getting to the roots of the issue
> to feel that it should be fixed once and forever.
>
> I'd accept the fact that nobody has enough expertise in the core to be
> able to say whether the proposed change would break anything or to
> explain what was the motivation behind the original logic in the
> first place. I really hope that it's not the case, though.

You know, the proposed fix only affects diagnostics, so it's not likely that 
it will "break" anything. However, for me to really say anything, I need to 
understand the original problem which asks for this changes. Can you briefly 
explain?

- Volodya