On 7/20/2010 1:58 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 7/20/2010 1:54 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 7/20/2010 1:06 PM, John Maddock wrote:
For those reasons, Rene and I have decided that "bjam.exe" should go. We're thinking about naming the executable simply "build.exe", since no other build tool bothered to take it.
The name bjam is no doubt hard-coded in many build scripts and renaming it will create a lot of unnecessary bugs.
Good point.
+1 for leaving it "bjam". This is silly.
There's nothing silly here. We're solving a real problem that confuses real users.
<snip wildly inappropriate comment from yours truly> Apologies. How about I try to add something constructive? I think you'll create more confusion than you'll clear at this point by changing names. Good or bad, folks are used to bjam. And you'll create a lot of churn for boost, boost's users, boost packagers, and other users of boost.build who probably have a lot of scripts that depend on the name being 'bjam'. I don't see the benefits outweighing the costs. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com