[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons?

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons?
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:04:31 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:41:41AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le samedi 12 septembre 2009 à 02:57 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > Hmm.  Could you / have you contacted the waf developers about
> > making the version-checking function part of their main distro?
> No, because I'm not familiar enough with Waf and my code isn't
> stabilized enough, so I put my custom extensions and tools in modules
>, Tools/  However, I plan to do this
> later.

Ok.  I'm just worried about re-creating the stepmake mess, where
Han-Wen and Jan spent a lot of time creating it, but never got it
merged upstream.  As a result, it's become an evolutionary dead

The more people who use the code, the more bugfixing/examination
it will get, and the more tutorials and documentations people will
write.  Granted, I'm thinking about the 3-10 year horizon rather
than 6-12 months, but I still think it's worth considering.

> > Otherwise we might have problems down the road if they add
> > a different version checking function.
> Nope; even if there is a naming clash, we can resolve it in our
> sources :-)  The only issue I'm scared about is that Waf class
> interfaces might be a moving target.

Yes, but if you get it merged upstream, then the class interfaces
is *their* problem, not *yours*.  :P
This a perfect example of a benefit of upstream merging.  Assuming
that the waf project has any desire for internal consistency and
stability, which may or may not be true at this point.  :)

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]