branch SCons_20150323 I can will setup from scratch again and try again.
Jason From: William Blevins Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:38 PM To: SCons developer list Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] Cross-language support Jason, Are you sure you are using the correct commit revision? None of those tests are failing on my Linux distro, and I haven't modified any of those tests either. Plus, tests that I am expecting to fail are apparently passing. V/R, William On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Jason Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: So a quick pass of the tests has these failures Failed the following 15 tests: test\Batch\action-changed.py test\MSVS\vs-9.0-exec.py test\Win32\mingw.py test\exitfns.py test\implicit\IMPLICIT_COMMAND_DEPENDENCIES.py test\import.py test\long-lines\signature.py test\option\debug-count.py test\option\debug-multiple.py test\option\debug-objects.py test\scons-time\run\config\python.py test\scons-time\run\option\python.py test\sconsign\script\SConsignFile.py test\sconsign\script\Signatures.py test\sconsign\script\no-SConsignFile.py From: Jason Kenny Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:32 PM To: SCons developer list Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] Cross-language support Ok let me update the branch and re-run everything. Jason From: William Blevins Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:30 AM To: SCons developer list Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] Cross-language support Jason, I'm not sure. I remember that you were helping me look into the recursive Install behavior. Plus, possible parts incompatibility? I haven't ran the tests on a windows box at all. I don't expect anything new, but it should be done before it ships :) V/R, William On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Jason Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: Which MS toolchain on windows do we need tested? I can do a test run this afternoon. Jason From: William Blevins Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:11 AM To: SCons developer list Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] Cross-language support Happy with it* Until the review is complete, and I can perhaps get a few more guinea pigs to try it out, it's hard to make a concrete projection. I have 3 items listed out that need to be given a thumbs up/down at a minimum: * Item #1 is still mostly outstanding. I'm not sure how to address, please see the discussion Jason and I started a few weeks ago under the pull request comments. * Item #2 requires no changes (to my knowledge), but someone with more QT knowledge may say otherwise. * I may already have most of the patch for Item #3 (IE. no scanner for key) based on today's feedback. I also still need to request test runs on Windows, and for toolchains that I may not have installed or instructions to install them (EG. D). V/R, William On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:58 AM, William Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: 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 Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:31 PM To: Dirk Bächle ; SCons developer list 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
