On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 14:19 -0400, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
[…]
What I've been thinking is this:
* for now, we continue working on the python3-port branch until it works.
* until python3-port works, regular changes go on default as usual.
* merge from default into python3-port as needed, to
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 14:19 -0400, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
[…]
What I've been thinking is this:
* for now, we continue working on the python3-port branch until it
works.
* until python3-port works, regular
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 08:14 -0400, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
[…]
Yes, that's correct (though much of the 2to3 stuff ought to be _basically_
python2 compliant with some massaging).
there are various b'…' crept in and some other stuff. I haven't had time
to sit down and run things so this is really
Now we have default and python3-port as working branches, we need a
workflow that ensures they are kept in sync. If python3-port is left
behind, then all the work to date will have been for nought.
I also need advice on how to handle feature clones: I have the
SCons_D_Tooling clone and have no
Hi Russel,
On 04.10.2013 19:23, Russel Winder wrote:
Now we have default and python3-port as working branches, we need a
workflow that ensures they are kept in sync. If python3-port is left
behind, then all the work to date will have been for nought.
hmmm, we probably should discuss (and then
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Russel,
On 04.10.2013 19:23, Russel Winder wrote:
Now we have default and python3-port as working branches, we need a
workflow that ensures they are kept in sync. If python3-port is left
behind, then all the work to
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 20:10 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote:
[…]
hmmm, we probably should discuss (and then decide) how we want
development to look like, once we have a working python3 branch. Will we
continue to support both major versions 2.x and 3.x? If yes, in which
direction (2-3 or 3-2) do
