pypy-sync developer meeting 16th February 2006
Time & location: 1pm (30 minutes), GMT+1 at #pypy-sync
Carl Friedrich Bolz
Eric van Riet Paap
Michael Hudson (moderation & minutes)
- activity reports (3 prepared lines of info).
All Attendees submitted activity reports (see the `IRC Log`_
and 'LAST/NEXT/BLOCKERS' entries in particular)
- resolve conflicts/blockers: No blockers
Topics of the week
- pycon sprint planning
Michael agreed to update our sprint tutorial materials. There was
consensus that the "Paris style" of daily planning meetings and
small-ish discussion groups presenting results was likely to be a
good approach, although flexibility is required as we don't really
know who's going to be there. Arre agreed to see if the Strakt
projector could be brought along.
- mozart/oz sprint
Shortly before the meeting Nicolas checked in (revision 23397,
pypy/extradoc/sprintinfo/louvain-la-neuve-2006) enough information
to answer all questions :)
- extra core sprint
There was agreement that we need a core sprint before EuroPython.
Armin suggested the middle or end of March in Leysin, but most other
people preferred the beginning of April. Armin agreed to
investigate a sprint location in Leysin for the dates 3-9th of
April. So if you didn't attend the meeting, do want to attend the
sprint and can't make these dates, now would be the time to shout :)
- state of stackless
The WP9 work requires an efficient threading implementation.
Aurelien wanted to know if the stackless work had progressed to the
point of making an efficient green threads implementation to be
made. Armin said that anything was probably possible, but that
precise details of what was needed were required.
There was agreement that there should be a session on this at a
sprint, or if that failed a planned session on IRC about the topic.
The issue not especially time-critical, fortunately.
- moderation of pypy-sync meetings
There was consensus that too many people will be in the air to have
a pypy-sync meeting next week. As most of those people will still
be at pycon a week later for the next pypy-sync meeting, it's not
clear that there will be one on the 2nd of March either.
.. _`IRC log`:
Complete IRC log
[12:55] <mwh> ok, my clock says 12:02
[12:55] arigo (n=arigo@p54AB84C0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) joined #pypy-sync.
[12:55] <mwh> so i'd like to start
[12:55] <mwh> activity reports, please
[12:55] <auc> LAST: finished streams, scheduling problem
[12:55] <auc> NEXT: exercise the solver with various problems, dbugging
[12:55] <auc> BLOCK: nil
[12:56] <mwh> LAST: genc work
[12:56] <mwh> NEXT: more genc, pycon preparations
[12:56] <mwh> BLOCKERS: -
[12:56] <nikh> LAST: random explorations and fixes
[12:56] <nikh> NEXT: more explorations, also around rctypes and ootypesystem
[12:56] <nikh> BLOCKERS: none
[12:56] <ericvrp> LAST: stackless optimization and transformation, NEXT: more of that, BLOCKERS: -
[12:56] <hpk> LAST: codespeak refinements, press release, non-pypy
[12:56] <hpk> NEXT: pycon + sprints, customer-meeting
[12:56] <hpk> BLOCKERS:
[12:56] <arre> PREV: JIT-work
[12:56] <arre> NEXT: JIT-work
[12:56] <arre> BLOCKERS: None
[12:56] <cfbolz> LAST: some GC work with Armin: finding the roots sort of works somewhat
[12:56] <cfbolz> NEXT: maybe more GC work
[12:56] <cfbolz> BLOCKERS: not enough time
[12:57] <mwh> arigo, pedronis ?
[12:57] <pedronis> LAST: jit work, help with GC, some opt and polish, bug fixingwork
[12:57] <pedronis> NEXT: jit,, pycon
[12:57] <pedronis> BLOCKERS: -
[12:57] <arigo> LAST: Psyco stuff, GC framework progress with Carl
[12:57] <arigo> NEXT: more JIT, possibly more GC
[12:57] <arigo> BLOCKERS: -
[12:57] <mwh> ok
[12:57] <mwh> the first topic is pycon sprint planning
[12:58] <mwh> i'm not sure what we need to do other than update our tutorial
[12:58] <mwh> (also, we have some talks to write, i think...)
[12:58] Action: hpk will take care for the py lib/py.test track of that sprint
[12:58] <hpk> i guess we are going to proceed similarly to paris
[12:58] <mwh> does anyone desperately want to work on the tutorial?
[12:59] <mwh> hpk: in which way do you mean?
[12:59] <hpk> mwh: having short "result presesntation and rough planning" daily sessions and otherwise work more in sub-groups
[12:59] <mwh> hpk: ah right
[12:59] <hpk> arre,pedronis: can we have the projector there?
[12:59] <mwh> i think we probably need to be flexbile (agile, even :) and see who turns up
[13:00] <hpk> yes
[13:00] <hpk> arigo: can you also prepare our architecture session talk a bit before the conference?
[13:00] <mwh> if noone else wants to work on the tutorial, i can do it
[13:00] <arre> hpk: Provided Jacob does not want it I'll make sure to bring it allong.
[13:00] <hpk> mwh: would be great - i can review it at the conference but not before i guess
[13:01] <mwh> we've got a fair few topics to get though today, don't want to talk about this for two long
[13:01] <arigo> hpk: yes
[13:01] <mwh> so, decisions: arre to check about beamer, me to look at tutorial
[13:01] <mwh> any dissent?
[13:01] <hpk> no, fine
[13:02] <mwh> - mozart/oz sprint
[13:02] <mwh> i think for this we'd just like to hear dates, plans, who's going
[13:02] <auc> nicolas just posted some bits of information about that
[13:02] <mwh> i take it this is an insiders only sprint
[13:02] <auc> into svn
[13:02] <mwh> auc: ah
[13:02] <cfbolz> mwh: the sprint announcement does not sound like it
[13:02] <hpk> well, it can't hurt to do an announcement at least to pypy-dev?
[13:02] <mwh> cfbolz: ok
[13:03] <mwh> ah yes, i see the check in now
[13:03] <auc> http://codespeak.net/svn/pypy/extradoc/sprintinfo/louvain-la-neuve-2006/
[13:03] <mwh> ok, well i guess that check in answers all the questions
[13:03] <mwh> move on to next topic?
[13:04] <cfbolz> mwh: yes :-)
[13:04] <mwh> - extra core sprint
[13:04] <mwh> i don't think there's much doubt that we need another sprint before europython
[13:05] <mwh> as both pycon and tokyo will be dissemination focussed to some extent
[13:05] <mwh> and louvain-la-neuve is a bit off centre
[13:05] <cfbolz> mwh: agreed
[13:05] <arigo> there is a non-concrete idea about Leysin, but more mid-end-of-March than early April
[13:05] <mwh> arigo: i see
[13:05] <hpk> arigo: early april would not be possible?
[13:05] <mwh> i can't make the end of march
[13:06] Action: hpk will not make it mid/end march either
[13:06] <arigo> the longer we wait, the less snow we have :-/
[13:06] <cfbolz> arigo: I would also prefer early april :-)
[13:06] <mwh> arigo: hmm :)
[13:06] <mwh> i don't know if we want to try and decide dates now
[13:06] <mwh> just "yes, we need a sprint"
[13:07] <hpk> well, it seems that early april is more likely to fit at least with carl, michael and me
[13:07] <arigo> yes, we need a sprint
[13:07] <hpk> just time-wise
[13:07] <cfbolz> mwh: yes, we need a sprint
[13:07] <arigo> hpk: point taken
[13:07] <pedronis> mid of march doesn't work for me either
[13:07] <mwh> auc: how about logilab?
[13:07] <auc> don't know
[13:07] <mwh> it seems getting logilab and tismerysoft in the same place at some point would be a good thing
[13:08] <mwh> (see next topic...)
[13:08] <cfbolz> indeed
[13:09] <auc> but april is better than march
[13:09] <hpk> ericvrp: how is beginning april for you?
[13:09] <ericvrp> I don't think I can make it to an intermediatte sprint
[13:09] <mwh> arigo: is leysin-in-april still a workable plan?
[13:09] <hpk> ericvrp: ok, i thought that because you don't come to pycon ... but then you'd like to go to tokyo, i see
[13:09] <mwh> (apart from the snow issue)
[13:10] <arigo> mwh: I propose that we fix potential dates (to be checked by me):
[13:10] <ericvrp> maybe I can come for a very short while, if that makes sense at all
[13:10] <arigo> the week of the 3rd-7th of April
[13:10] <hpk> arigo: yes, sounds like it
[13:10] <mwh> arigo: yes
[13:10] <hpk> and people can come around (preferably before) if they want to ski
[13:10] <arigo> if we don't fix dates now it will slip later Yet Another Time :-)
[13:11] <mwh> (predictably enough i'm prancing around in rock shoes the previous week...)
[13:11] <hpk> arigo: will you check out the old setting?
[13:11] <mwh> arigo: yes, agreed
[13:11] <mwh> 3-7?
[13:11] <arigo> (when's Easter?)
[13:11] <arigo> hpk: the same place, yes
[13:11] <mwh> easter sunday is 23rd april
[13:11] <mwh> i think
[13:11] <arre> arigo: The week after.
[13:11] <hpk> 3-7th sounds a bit like no-breakday?
[13:11] <hpk> it's five days
[13:12] <arigo> arre: 16th? thanks
[13:12] <arigo> hpk: I talked about the week
[13:12] <hpk> ah ok
[13:12] <hpk> so we are talking about 3-9th with a breakday in between or so
[13:12] <mwh> er, yes 16th
[13:12] <cfbolz> yes, sounds good to me
[13:12] <mwh> 3-9 works for me
[13:13] <hpk> pedronis, arre: would work for you as well?
[13:13] <mwh> so, mention this on pypy-dev?
[13:13] <arre> 3-9 is not a problem for me.
[13:13] <pedronis> it works for me
[13:13] <arigo> mwh: ok (I need to check of course)
[13:13] <mwh> i'd like to move on to the next topic soon ish
[13:13] <mwh> arigo: of course
[13:13] <hpk> arigo: yip
[13:13] <hpk> fine with me, mwh: i think it's enough for now to mention it prominently in the minutes
[13:14] <mwh> hpk: ok
[13:14] <mwh> next topic:
[13:14] <mwh> - state of stackless
[13:14] Action: ericvrp Christian needs to answer that one
[13:14] <mwh> this is auc's topic, but basically i think the question is particularly about whether there are concrete plans for microthreads
[13:15] <mwh> ericvrp: yeah
[13:15] <mwh> it's about 2am where he is though, i think
[13:15] <arigo> I think Christian's got coroutines, greenlets and tasklets so far
[13:15] <auc> what are green/tasklets ?
[13:15] <auc> wrt coroutines ?
[13:15] <arigo> and it should be very easy to add other abstractions
[13:15] <mwh> arigo: is that enough to build microthreads at app level?
[13:15] <arigo> auc: mostly just a different, slightly richer interface than bare coroutines
[13:16] <mwh> i guess not with preemption
[13:16] <auc> mwh: sure
[13:16] <arigo> mwh: yes, it all depends on what is needed more precisely
[13:16] <cfbolz> indeed
[13:16] <auc> anyway real threads are needed, if only because they are part of python, no ?
[13:16] <mwh> i guess pypy-sync isn't really the forum for this discussion in the long run
[13:16] <cfbolz> auc: well, yes. but you cannot have thousands of them
[13:17] <auc> sure, that's why we want picrothreads
[13:17] <auc> (shit)
[13:17] <auc> it's not extremely urgent
[13:17] <cfbolz> picothreads?
[13:17] <arigo> auc: the answer is that it's mostly easy for any of us to build whatever you need, but it must be more well-defined
[13:17] <auc> micro, nano, pico, femto, whatever ;-)
[13:18] <mwh> auc: good to know (about the urgency)
[13:18] <cfbolz> auc: well, would you want the exactly the same interface as threads, for example
[13:18] <auc> arigo: it's simple, we want efficient threads
[13:18] <mwh> ideal would be to have a session on this at a sprint
[13:18] <auc> bonus : threads that return values
[13:18] <arigo> auc: but for example, do you need threads that can block on system calls without blocking other threads
[13:18] <auc> bonus : threads that expose the interface present in Oz
[13:18] <arigo> auc: I guess not
[13:19] <auc> arigo: I guess yes
[13:19] <mwh> if not, would it make sense to schedule some irc session to get the relevant parties together?
[13:19] <arigo> auc: that's very hard to do without real OS threads
[13:19] <auc> this interface is describe in some document I've committed already
[13:19] <arigo> mwh: yes
[13:19] <auc> I can move it to doc/discussions
[13:19] <cfbolz> yes please
[13:19] <auc> arigo: ok we'll see
[13:20] <mwh> so ideally this will be talked about at lln/leysin
[13:20] <mwh> otherwise irc sometime
[13:20] <mwh> now for two minutes:
[13:20] <mwh> who moderates the next pypy-sync?
[13:20] <mwh> it's not going to be me!
[13:20] <arigo> (auc: feel free to talk about in in #pypy at any time :-)
[13:21] <cfbolz> mwh: will there be enough people on next thursday?
[13:21] <nikh> aren't about half of the people present here going to be on planes next pypy-sync?
[13:21] <arigo> 23rd? half of us are in the plane
[13:21] <mwh> cfbolz: don't know
[13:21] <hpk> nikh: true
[13:21] <hpk> don't planes have wireless these days?
[13:21] <mwh> ok, so maybe there will not be a pypy-sync next week
[13:21] <mwh> that's fine
[13:22] <mwh> hpk: only if you pay $$$$ i think
[13:22] <auc> arigo: yup
[13:22] <cfbolz> mwh: then let's plan the one afterwards
[13:22] <mwh> well, the one afterwards is on the day i'm travelling again
[13:22] <cfbolz> argh
[13:22] <mwh> it will be about 5am local time for pycon-ers, i think
[13:23] <hpk> hum
[13:23] <hpk> well, then let's not decide now in a hurry
[13:23] <mwh> ok
[13:23] <mwh> there are maybe 30 seconds for any final points :)
[13:24] <hpk> (we could take the opportunity to shift it to a different time)
[13:24] <mwh> consistency is good though
[13:24] <mwh> anyway, time up
[13:24] Action: mwh closes the meeting