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

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-17 16:53:49

Vladimir Prus writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>> 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?

Vladimir,

Was Misha's reply informative enough --
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.build/6700?

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering