As soon as we are happen with it :) On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Bill Deegan <[email protected]> wrote:
> O.k. let me push 2.3.5 with the visual studio 2015 stuff. > Then we'll changed to 2.4 merge slots. stabilize. release. > Then this code? (2.5?) > > -Bill > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Jason Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have been using the slots drop for a while with Parts. I think it is >> ready. It does have a notable improvement in speed and memory size. I would >> before getting this out as officially earlier than later. >> >> Jason >> >> *From:* William Blevins <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:31 PM >> *To:* Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> ; SCons developer list >> <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Scons-dev] Cross-language support >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> sorry for chiming in so late. >>> >>> On 28.07.2015 23:44, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, that's how we've done it in the past. Sounds like doing it at the >>>> same time as slots would be perfect. >>>> >>>> >>> Doing this in parallel with the "slots" change sounds good to me too. +1 >>> >> >> I'm not opposed to releasing in the same update as slots, but since the >> cross language code reviews haven't been finished, I don't want to delay >> slots since it is ready now. >> >> The pessimist in me as sees doing two major enhancements in the same >> release as higher risk; I don't foresee any issues, but its worth the >> thought if the release overhead isn't too bad. >> >> >>> >>> -- Gary >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Bill Deegan <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Gary, >>>> >>>> For such a change we should bump the second digit? >>>> 2.4? >>>> >>>> I agree we should not turn down a change because it will cause >>>> rebuilds where the past didn't as long as it is now more correct >>>> (which it should be with this change). >>>> >>> >>> Yes, "forward" is the way to go. ;) >>> >>> Also agree we should be verbose in our notification of the impacts >>>> of the new change to avoid (as much as we can) "surprises". >>>> >>>> >>> I think (better: hope) we did a good enough job for the "slots" stuff on >>> this. For the scanner changes, I see them more like a fix...so a single >>> announcement should be sufficient? >>> >>> Finally, and just in case I haven't done so already, I'd like to thank >>> William for all the work he's done on this issue. I couldn't help as much >>> as I would've liked, but with Gary's support you tackled this down and >>> brought it to a good end. Kudos to you...bravo! >>> >>> >> Truly appreciated. I have spent a lot of time on this issue despite what >> one might expect from the number of lines of code. >> >> It was honestly my first time working in a "real" python environment >> outside of scripting, and the SCons code base is rather complex. It >> instills me greater appreciation for the work that has already done. >> >> I also want to thank everyone here for their help past and future, but >> don't pat me on the back until its done. I might get lazy :) >> >> >> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Dirk >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Scons-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Scons-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scons-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
