IMHO, version number alone is fine. Probably the usual process which has the release on its own branch is why this normally works. But it is time-consuming so if you want to simplify I'm all for it.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Bill Deegan <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm fixing some logic in SCons's own SConstruct which sets the revision > number. > Currently is has the revision #, changeset has, branch, and whether it's > modified. > > I also notice that 2.3.4 didn't have this info, so I'm guessing it > bootstrap.py was passed the revision id > > (venv)WilliamsMacBook:scons-2.3.4 bdbaddog$ scons --version > SCons by Steven Knight et al.: > script: v2.3.4, 2014/09/27 12:51:43, by garyo on lubuntu > engine: v2.3.4, 2014/09/27 12:51:43, by garyo on lubuntu > engine path: ['/Users/bdbaddog/tmp/venv/lib/scons-2.3.4/SCons'] > Copyright (c) 2001 - 2014 The SCons Foundation > > Should this be the practice going forward? > Or is there value in having 2.3.5, revision #3252, changeset 385adb84f > for example? > > -Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > > -- Gary
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
