Dirk,
What would be the reason to put slots on 2.4 instead of default branch?
If needed we can always branch from 2.3.6 to make a 2.3 branch and patch
that.
-Bill
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
Hey Bill,
On 31.07.2015 19:30, Bill Deegan wrote:
Did a
The initial slots change has the object set up to call get_path() when
trying to get the attr path (and all the others), but we expect everyone to
use the functions going forward.
William
On Aug 1, 2015 9:31 AM, Jonathon Reinhart jonathon.reinh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all,
I'm looking at
Congratulations all! Looks great!
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:06 AM, William Blevins wblevins...@gmail.com
wrote:
Good news indeed! Thanks for the release :)
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Bill Deegan b...@baddogconsulting.com
wrote:
Greetings,
Now that 2.3.6 is out the door. Next
Hello all,
I'm looking at the upcoming Node API changes (for __slots__) mentioned here:
https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/2014-July/002734.html
Is it correct that we will be unable to use t.abspath in v2.4, and will
instead need to use a new method, t.get_abspath()? Is there any
Hi,
Old attributes will still be supported, so that the upgrade should be
transparent.
--
Alexandre Féblot
(envoyé depuis mon iPhone)
Le 1 août 2015 à 15:31, Jonathon Reinhart jonathon.reinh...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Hello all,
I'm looking at the upcoming Node API changes (for __slots__)
This is great. Thanks for the regular releases. Can people tell me the plan for
python3 integration? I see that the scons 2.3 release notes indicate that 2.4
and later will be allowed to be python2.7 only to enable migration to python3.
I am really interested in the python3 port and I’m happy
Dirk,
I'd say merge direct to default.
Otherwise we're just inserting more delay to getting it released.
-Bill
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
Bill,
On 01.08.2015 20:23, Bill Deegan wrote:
Dirk,
What would be the reason to put slots on 2.4 instead of
Bill,
On 01.08.2015 20:23, Bill Deegan wrote:
Dirk,
What would be the reason to put slots on 2.4 instead of default branch?
If needed we can always branch from 2.3.6 to make a 2.3 branch and patch that.
I, personally, am quite confident that merging directly to default should work fine.
