On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Gary Oberbrunner <[email protected]> wrote: > There's probably not much point in my trying to respond to many of the > threads that have been running here in the last couple of weeks; if there > are things that should be addressed please bring them up.
https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/pull-request/169/once-more-suppress-warning-about-missing/diff Thank you. =) > The other project is toolchain; I've started working on this and would like > to spend my time on that if possible; it's where I can probably bring the > most value to the project. I actually don't think it'll take all that long > to hammer out the design and first test implementation; there'll be a bunch > of tool-porting after that but we can split that up. Tool porting? I think you've chosen a bad strategy. Let's split that abstract toolchain concept into something that could be discussed. 1. Before making any significant changes, I want to make sure that all tests pass. 2. Before making any significant changes, I want to make sure that running tests is a viable task. Right now a single run is 15+ minutes, which suxx. We need to identify the bottleneck. I thought that it is disk access, so I've set up a RAM drive for running them, but there are other things that should be done - smart DefaultEnvironment initialization, for example. 3. Before making anything from scratch (which is a process we all enjoy) the more valuable activity would be to do a code review and comparison for Parts. Once it is published, implementation won't be a problem. Nevertheless, actions are more important than talks. As for Mercurial history, I still look for a chance to cut the Docbook toolchain bloat from repository, so if you really don't care much about history.. ) _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
