>>After reading the above, do you still think this is a poor 2-to-3 transition >>management scheme? Given this statement: >(Note that some simple SConstructs that just call the SCons API functions and >don't do much python themselves may just work. But we can't promise that, >because people can use any python they want in >their SConstructs/SConscripts).
No I don't think this is bad scheme. I believe however we need to fill in the holes the best we can. Anyone can make non-portable build files in CMake, Ant, etc... The issue is can one easily make a build file portable if the tried. I believe at this time we have strong API weakness, that make this very hard to do. Given that we can make this a lot easier with newer Scons 2 drops with and SCons 3 drops, people have a means to make stuff portable before they try to make the jump at their own pace. The main issue at this point is that python 2 support is starting to be dropped, this makes it harder for us to make a better Scons as now there seems to be a ticking clock. I would like to hear what anatoly techtonik thinks. Jason
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
