Might I suggest we stop discussing it and just propose pull requests. If you have a specific change in mind, then make it and send a pull request.
That said, I only see one person with an issue to the change made. (unless I'm misreading), and lots of time spent discussing. Personally, I'd like to get scons setup so I can do : pip install -e scons and then just use that virtualenv. I've done that with other projects (buildbot), and it's pretty darned easy and useful. -Bill On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, anatoly techtonik <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19.02.2014 06:15, Bill Deegan wrote: > >> > >> Anatoly, > >> > >> bootstrap.py is not meant to be run by users, only developers. > >> > >> -Bill > >> > > > > I'd even go one step further and say: it's primarily meant to be run by > > release managers. > > It looks like I will be urged to demand prooflinks soon. =) > > The previous behavior was useful for development, so if I wanted to > increase > participation and quality of the code, I'd try to satisfy as much > conflicting > interests as possible. > > Right now I don't really see where is the conflict. Well, now that I think > about > it - I can revert to previous behavior myself, but it will take more time > to > investigate what was done, so if you can pinpoint me to the piece of code > that > needs to be brought back it will save all of us a several hours of debates > and > free this time on something useful. > > > Nobody forces you now or has forced > > you in the past, to run this additional step, right? > > I miss the context. Which step and why should I be forced? > Right now I am forced to install doc toolchain just to run a quick > integration test for which bootstrap was used. You're not providing > any alternative for this scenario and forcing me to think that I am > developing SCons wrong and SCons was not meant to be developed > this way. Sorry for the tone, I don't want to offend anyone, I type this > in a hurry and have to apply critical logic to outline all arguments as > quickly as possible. > > > Or is it your understanding that every developer is required to run the > full > > build scenario? > > No. It is your understanding. Sorry. > > The point of conflict that you don't accept is that bootstrap.py can be > used > and was used in the past as quick integration test. Please think about this > and provide viable alternative to the person who is been robbed of his > favorite > hack. =) > > > And that's what we did, we made SCons better such that you don't have to > > write MAN pages by hand anymore for example. As a consequence of this, > you > > simply don't get away anymore with what you did in the past: running only > > half of the packaging test without the documentation. > > You are forcing people to a better change. If you want to make SCons better > make the documentation build out of development loop cycle. This will save > that precious bits of time that we all have at scarce. > > I am not saying not to build docs. I am saying - make it optional. Please > hear me. bootstrap.py is not for building SCons. It is for testing what's > in > repository, and SCons SConstruct most of the time is the only comprehensive > example you can test against. > > > But this is also a change to the better side and not meant to be against > you > > personally. It reduces the work load for the actual release managers > because > > errors in the documentation syntax are revealed much earlier in the > > development process. > > Resurrect buildbots. There is a machine at speed.python.org that nobody > cares about, so if you send a letter to Jessie, I don't see any problems in > him to allow to use it for SCons. The machine can automatically build the > docs and notify everybody about these errors. This will work. Forcing > people > to build docs to "reduce the work load" for release managers by spending > much more developer's time on that task is the balance I can't agree with. > Developer can become a release manager, but the opposite is not true. > > > And you can still get back to your old routine and workflow and help the > > project even more and better than before, if you decide to take that > little > > step and install the libxml2 or lxml Python bindings. > > I am on Windows, and for some reason pip doesn't install any of them. > > > And if you decide to not install it, and simply skip the full packaging > > build, that'll be fine with everyone too...and you can save even more of > > your time and invest it in development itself. > > You're again forcing me skip running integration test and do the > development the way you want. Do I look like demanding from you to skip > building documentation altogether? Why the resistance? I'd personally > resist only because I could be lazy to do the change. Is that it? =) > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
