[Scons-dev] Repo not wiki for tools and add-ons

[William Blevins]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 04.07.2015 20:46, Russel Winder wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2015-07-04 at 13:17 -0400, Bill Deegan wrote:
>>
>>> Russel,
>>>
>>> I've created:
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons-contrib/admin/access
>>>
>>>
> thanks a lot for creating this Bill.
>
>
>> [...]
>>
>>  Would it be worth having 3 base dirs:
>>> tools
>>> scripts
>>> docs
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
> I would like to see another folder here for contributed "config" snippets
> (automake-like checks for libs n' stuff).
> Ideally, the "tools/config" folders have the same name for the SCons core
> distribution and the "contrib" package, such that we can easily blend them
> together via "import" at runtime...
>
>  Or just have tools live in the root of the repo?
>>>
>>
>> I think idea of having tools as a sub-heirarchy is fitting and gives
>> most flexibility. Indeed I wonder if we go with this, we have had
>> sufficient debate on structure to begin to act.
>>
>> We do perhaps need to have criteria for accepting new tools, and
>> ejecting current tools. I have a few Mercurial repositories on
>> BitBucket that are immediate candidates, but the question is whether
>> they are ready or whether they would be better staying separate for
>> now. Clearly I could put them all in but would that be the right thing
>> to do just now?
>>
>
> The question here is: What is the "scons-contrib" supposed to do? So far I
> got the impression it's a replacement for all the code snippets in the Wiki
> that haven't found a place in their own repo yet. This would clearly
> exclude the already existing Tools (see ToolsIndex) from this list, and we
> don't move them to "scons-contrib" but let them stay where they are.
> Then the regular restrictions for moving directly into the core would
> still hold (requires docs and tests). The evolution chain would be:
>
>   Wiki snippet -> scons-contrib -> external Tool (own repo) -> SCons core
>
>
>
Most of the wiki tools are rather simple.  I'm not sure I see the harm in
going from scons-contrib -> SCons core directly provided there are tests.
Though that brings up another question.  Since all the SCons test framework
only exists in the core repo, in what form should tests for contributed
code exist?


> If you're aiming for a "contains-all-external-tools-and-snippets" repo,
> yes, we would need to have some clear criteria for accepting them. In my
> opinion, it's all about the user here. He expects a certain degree of
> maturity for the Tools and add-ons we provide, such that they work
> out-of-the-box for him. Another difficult task would be to find a single
> (!) maintainer for organizing this whole bunch of loose ends.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dirk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20150705/9e7604d0/attachment.html>