On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshor...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 18.02.2014 19:59, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> You need to ensure that there are no warnings during the build process >> and the warning about missing documentation build is among those that >> you especially should not ignore as a release manager. ;) >> > > I could live with both variants for the top-level build (packaging n' > stuff): > > a) The default is to build and package SCons as far as the tools and > requirements for the single steps are met. Documentation may get built and > archives might get packaged and tested or not, depending on which > tools/modules you have installed in your system. The focus is on "trying > out" integration with a minimum of effort, especially regarding running time > of the build. > > b) The default is to guarantee a correct build, which means that all > packages get created such that they contain all required files and > documents. All these packages pass their tests, especially the ones for > self-containment, and are ready to get shipped. If one or more of these > goals are not met, the build breaks. > > > So I'd like to let the actual release managers decide. Just chime in guys... > > Personally, I'd always do the full build anyway. Sorry, but I simply don't > believe in getting half-pregnant. ;)
I don't understand what do you mean by being half-pregnant. Can you expand on this? -- anatoly t. _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
