On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 3:02 PM, anatoly techtonik <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am not sure we need to do checkpoint releases anymore. It is already > possible to run SCons from source, so hg clone and run should be enough > to test. > I agree with this. We can probably at least use a bookmark so people can check out something stable to test. I also agree it would be good to get the buildbots green, though in some cases that may be difficult. I'll see what I can do about the symlink one on Windows. I'm learning more about mercurial as I go; I did a lot of rebasing, local cloning, and branch manipulation as part of doing this release and merging "trunk" (hard not to call it that!) into the python3 branch. So if you have particular questions I can perhaps help. As far as using branches for "small" features goes, I don't think that is as good an idea in hg as it is in git. Branch names are permanent and immutable, and they take more steps to handle than in git. On the other hand, we do need real branches for big features. I experimented with replacing the python3 branch with a bookmark on the default branch (you can have multiple named heads) but the key thing that made me roll that back was that clueless hg users will do "hg update default" and that gets the most-recently-modified head on default (even if it's a feature bookmark), rather than the "default head" (there isn't one). Other than that they might be good, but that seems obnoxious enough to not go that way. I admit I still have in the back of my head the idea to switch to git; I really like git and mercurial feels like a straitjacket to me, although I'm figuring it out more and more. But I want to focus energy on improving scons itself right now; let's leave the workflow pretty much as it is unless changing something would make it much better. -- Gary
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
