[Scons-dev] SCons.. the road ahead

[Jason Kenny]

Fully agree 



-----Original Message-----
From: "Bill Deegan" <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
Sent: ‎9/‎25/‎2015 7:20 PM
To: "SCons developer list" <scons-dev at scons.org>
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons.. the road ahead

sure. at least the same code. no need to maintain two code bases..



On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Jason Kenny <dragon512 at live.com> wrote:

Given the current package system I think we might need to have python 2 and 3 packages for msi and rpm style packages.

Jason 




From: Bill Deegan
Sent: ‎9/‎25/‎2015 7:10 PM

To: SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons.. the road ahead


Jason,


As I see it SCons 3.0 main feature would be that it would run on python 2.7.x and 3.x (same source/installer for both)


-Bill



On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Jason Kenny <dragon512 at live.com> wrote:

Is SCons 3 main feature, python 3 support?
Jason 



From: Bill Deegan
Sent: ‎9/‎25/‎2015 5:56 PM
To: SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons.. the road ahead


I guess the question is should that happen in 3.0 branch or default.

Since most likely it's in the core and not in the tools, I'm guessing none of the outstanding pull requests will touch that..



On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Alexandre Feblot <alexandre at feblot.fr> wrote:

Hi, 
Wasn't Dirk speaking of first cleaning some 2.6-ish code? 


--
Alexandre Feblot


Le 26 sept. 2015 à 00:02, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com> a écrit :





On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com> wrote:





On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:50 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com> wrote:





On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com> wrote:

Greetings,


Here's what I'm thinking (Note I'm explicitly not discussing any infrastructure changes here, bugtracker, git vs hg, etc, so please do not chime in in this thread on those issues)


1) Merge any fairly trivial pull requests currently outstanding to default branch

2) Release 2.4.1 (And push to pypi)

3) Merge cross language scanner pull request.

4) Release 2.5.0 (and push to pypi)



I follow you up to here.
 
5) Merge 3.0 branch to default and finish that once and for all. 



Is this part high risk?  I assume that the 3.0 branch is still 2.7 compliant.  If it is then, it should be fine.


Yes the codebase should be Python 2.7.x and 3.x compat (where x is TBD but most likely .10 and .3? respectively).
 No Python 3.x only SCons for the foreseeable future, at least in my mind. Enough people are stuck at that with platforms they need to support for a while.





Then I don't see any issues with this path forward. 
 
 
6) Release a beta for 3.0

7) Release 3.0


Thoughts?


-Bill

SCons Project Co-Manager




_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev





_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev





_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev




_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev



_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev





_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev





_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev