[Scons-dev] Release 2.5.0

[Bill Deegan]

Anatoly,

Why would they be rebuilding the cache?
The contents are the same, it's simply the directory structure which
changes.

Most users use the cachedir because building the contents thereof is
"expensive".
Preserving what they've build when we're re-organizing the storage makes a
lot of sense.

If they're just going to wipe out their old cache none of this hurts them.

So to put it simply, there will be a migration script provided.
The method listed by Tom looks good to me.

-Bill


On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:18 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Migration won't help old clients who will be rebuilding the cache.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:44 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Automatic migration sounds legit to me. I just didn't want a SCons option
> > for it or something like that :)
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON)
> > <ttanner2 at bloomberg.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> mea culpa. I meant to get round to this with
> >>
> >> 1) Does cachedir exist - if not, create and create config file to
> indicate
> >> 2 char dir name
> >> 2) Does cachedir have a config file. if so, read it , otherwise set 1
> char
> >> dir name
> >> 3) update script to copying / moving cache and write version file
> >>
> >> From: scons-dev at scons.org At: Feb 17 2016 23:22:22
> >> To: scons-dev at scons.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] Release 2.5.0
> >>
> >> William,
> >>
> >> Thinking about what we'd need to pull
> >>
> >>
> https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/pull-requests/302/change-the-cache-to-use-2-character/diff
> >> Into 2.5.
> >>
> >> Seems like perhaps default to old one character cachedir, enable 2 two
> >> character with deprecation notice.
> >> Include tool to migrate.
> >> Release notes.
> >> Deprecation notice when not switched to 2 char mode.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> -Bill
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:30 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bill,
> >>>
> >>> Are we waiting on anything for 2.5.0? I haven't seen any hint of a
> >>> stubprocess pull request.
> >>>
> >>> V/R,
> >>> William
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Scons-dev mailing list
> >>> Scons-dev at scons.org
> >>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Scons-dev mailing list
> >> Scons-dev at scons.org
> >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Scons-dev mailing list
> >> Scons-dev at scons.org
> >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scons-dev mailing list
> > Scons-dev at scons.org
> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >
>
>
>
> --
> anatoly t.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160302/a80b69cb/attachment-0001.html>