[Scons-dev] Working branches

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at 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 date will have been for nought.

>>

>

> 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 we merge

> preferably, meaning: where do we do most of our development?

>

> Or does the 2.x stuff get abandoned and we care about Python 3.x only?



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 keep it current.
 * as soon as it's working (which means on both python2 and python3 all
tests pass, and a few people say it works in their environments), we merge
it to default and close that branch.
 * From then on, all new changes go on default, and must support our list
of supported pythons (2.7.2 or greater, and 3.3 or greater, right?)

I also need advice on how to handle "feature clones": I have the

>> SCons_D_Tooling clone and have no idea how to manage it now with the two

>> working branches.

>>

>>  I have my own repository "scons_experimental" for things like this. I

> pull from the SCons main repo whenever I feel the need to update, but never

> push back. So, I can merge freely and can also use named branches as much

> as I like...one for every "feature", basically.

> For features to be published, I create a patch and apply it to my clone of

> the main repo...then issue a pull request from there.

>


Feature branches seem to be the worst part of hg IMHO.  Dirk, your workflow
seems OK, although a bit indirect; you could run into problems once your
changes are accepted, pulling back in. Russel, would Dirk's setup work for
you?  Alternatively if we used a separate repo for python3 work would that
be better? (Seems weird to me, even though it seems to be common practice
in mercurial).

-- 
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20131004/29b9a33b/attachment.htm>