[Scons-dev] SCons release version tagging question

[Bill Deegan]

Gary,

Were you calling bootstrap.py REVISION=2.3.4 then?

-Bill

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Gary Oberbrunner <garyo at oberbrunner.com>
wrote:

> IMHO, version number alone is fine.  Probably the usual process which has
> the release on its own branch is why this normally works.  But it is
> time-consuming so if you want to simplify I'm all for it.
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I'm fixing some logic in SCons's own SConstruct which sets the revision
>> number.
>> Currently is has the revision #, changeset has, branch, and whether it's
>> modified.
>>
>> I also notice that 2.3.4 didn't have this info, so I'm guessing it
>> bootstrap.py was passed the revision id
>>
>> (venv)WilliamsMacBook:scons-2.3.4 bdbaddog$ scons --version
>> SCons by Steven Knight et al.:
>>     script: v2.3.4, 2014/09/27 12:51:43, by garyo on lubuntu
>>     engine: v2.3.4, 2014/09/27 12:51:43, by garyo on lubuntu
>>     engine path: ['/Users/bdbaddog/tmp/venv/lib/scons-2.3.4/SCons']
>> Copyright (c) 2001 - 2014 The SCons Foundation
>>
>> Should this be the practice going forward?
>> Or is there value in having 2.3.5, revision #3252, changeset 385adb84f
>> for example?
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-dev mailing list
>> Scons-dev at scons.org
>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gary
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150617/96f2198e/attachment.html>