Source

extradoc / minute / pypy-eu-sync-2006-04-25.txt

  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
 68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73
 74
 75
 76
 77
 78
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
 94
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605

EU pypy-sync 25th April 2006, 05:10-06:30 PM (UTC+2)
=====================================================

attendants: Michael Hudson, Armin Rigo, Christian Tismer, Carl Friedrich Bolz
            Samuele Pedroni, Aurelien Campeas,  Anders Chrigstroem, 
            Anders Lehmann, Jan Balster, Stephan Diehl, Gerald Klix,
            Niklaus Haldimann, Holger Krekel (moderation, minutes) 

The meeting's purpose was to synchronise work efforts related to the 
PyPy EU project and more specifically to structure and plan work for 
the 0.9 release.  The meeting invitation resulted from
discussions on the 20th April pypy-sync meeting.  Further
below is the IRC log of the roughly 1.5 hour long session.
Holger suggested a list of 0.9 topics which was accepted and
then discussed one by one: 

1. stackless support / WP07
------------------------------

Christian has produced a partial draft on his stackless 
and "thread pickling" ideas in pypy/doc/discussion/howtoimplementstackless.txt. 
This got discussed especially in relation to what we currently
have in our pypy translation tool chain.  It was noted that 
the current PyPy stackless approach does not directly map 
to the new description.  Some partial agreements and
open questions were identified and the final discussion and decision
about the 0.9 stackless approach was delegated to Christian Tismer, 
Michael Hudson, Samuele Pedroni and Armin Rigo (Armin will care about 
inviting and making sure that a proper description about the approach 
and the tasks is provided and agreed upon).  The decision should be 
taken in consensus with a deadline of end april.  Christian plans to 
spend his time after 1st May fully working on this support.  

Holger additionally notes that WP07 has more tasks than
tasklet pickling and all those tasks are promised to be
finished until June and raises the question if this is 
still feasible. 

Aurelien notes that WP09 (logic engine) depends on the ability to
clone threads.  Christian thinks that the upcoming stackless support
will allow the required usages.  Aurelien promises to write up
documentation about his implementation approaches and goals and the
needed features but also notes that the need for tasklet cloning was
mentioned two months ago.


2. ext compiler being able to produce extensions for CPython and PyPy
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armin has done a lot of progress on the revised WP03 approach
which we communicated to the EU with the fourth amendment
of our contract.  The rctypes approach is already working quite well 
and he is currently working on a cpyobjspace which is then used 
for writing and testing mixed modules.  We are going to 
require explicit wrapping, i.e. users will need to care explicitely 
for the interp/applevel distinction and cannot expect 
automatic wrapping.  However, it is envisioned that for past
0.9 development we might investigate "automatic" approaches on which
Christian has done some work already.  

For 0.9 everyone agrees and settles on the explicit approach.  

Armin will take care to bring the code to the point where we
have a command line tool which can produce CPython or PyPy
extension modules from a single (mixed module) source.  

3. GC framework integration + __del__ and maybe weakref
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For 0.9 Carl will continue his GC framework integration work
and also try to implement __del__ and a new approach for weakref 
support to work with all GCs.  Especially the weakref support 
needs to be discussed and experimented with further.  Some
approaches lead to rather large performance penalties so
this remains a matter of experimentation. 

4. high-level backend snapshots + documentation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a number of sub projects going on to implement high level
backends on top of ootype model: .NET, Squeak and recently a Common
Lisp one.  After short discussions everybody welcomed the idea and
would be glad to include a snapshot of the high-level backend works.
For 0.9 this requires writing documentation.  Holger will care to ask
Antonio and Samuele will ask Seo about it.  Niklaus already mentioned
at the meeting that he will try to write some documentation about
ootypes.


5. logic/constraint related goals?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aurelien states that basic constraint coding work has been done though
he asserts that it is not currently translatable.  He sees a
(non-vital) dependency on WP10 work and also mentions that he will
need some help wrt translatability.  Holger notes that the D9.1 report
is thought to have an intermediate draft ready in June (as the
original deliverable "initial constraint satisfaction engine" was
scheduled for that time).  Aurelien agreed to document their current
approaches so that they can be advertised and snapshotted with 0.9 and
also state missing/blocking features.


6. _some_ amount of release polishing and updating documentation, fixing issues
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holger reminded everyone that we have some 20-30 open issues for 0.9 
in the tracker at http://codespeak.net/issue/pypy-dev/ . 
It was commonly agreed that everyone goes through the list and
takes responsibility for some issues. 


last
--------

we are going to to have a follow up eu sync meeting mid may or maybe
at the Iceland sprint to assess ongoing and remaining 0.9 work
as well as develop plans for the remainder of the EU project. 
This is connected to an assessment of resource and time usage
at consortium-level. 

IRC log
--------------------------

:: 

 Apr 25 17:02:28 <hpk>	arre: hi arre, is samuele going to join soon? 
 Apr 25 17:02:51 <arre>	+I don't know. We have separate rooms.
 Apr 25 17:03:05 <hpk>	i wouldn't think he sleeps already :)
 Apr 25 17:03:24 -->	nikh (n=nikh@222-151-092-147.jp.fiberbit.net) has joined #pypy-sync
 Apr 25 17:04:09 <arigo>	+we need to wait for Chsritian, I suspect
 Apr 25 17:04:14 <arigo>	+Christian sorry
 Apr 25 17:04:18 <hpk>	and samuele 
 Apr 25 17:04:25 <arigo>	+yes
 Apr 25 17:04:30 <hpk>	otoh we can at least start and see how we want to go about things 
 Apr 25 17:04:43 <hpk>	without deciding any content topic 
 Apr 25 17:04:50 <hpk>	because i think that part of the problem is sorting issues and topics out
 Apr 25 17:04:52 <mwh>	+hello
 Apr 25 17:05:09 <hpk>	hi michael
 Apr 25 17:05:47 <hpk>	can everyone here state already how long you have time or at which time you would like to limit this meeting? 
 Apr 25 17:06:02 <mwh>	+i have an hour, easily
 Apr 25 17:06:20 <auc>	+no limit ...
 Apr 25 17:06:35 <cfbolz>	+I have no real limit, except that it might be hard to get home at one point :-)
 Apr 25 17:07:12 <mwh>	+there's a #europython meeting at 6, but i don't know who is going to turn up
 Apr 25 17:07:18 <mwh>	+and they can be overlapped
 Apr 25 17:07:34 -->	aleale (n=aleale@222-151-094-211.jp.fiberbit.net) has joined #pypy-sync
 Apr 25 17:07:34 -->	stakkars (n=tismer@66.151.59.5) has joined #pypy-sync
 Apr 25 17:07:38 <arre>	+Since its 0:07 here, shorter meeting => more sleep.
 Apr 25 17:07:47 <cfbolz>	+:-)
 Apr 25 17:07:51 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 17:07:51 <mwh>	+arre: :)
 Apr 25 17:08:00 <hpk>	stakkars: morning christian!
 Apr 25 17:08:16 <stakkars>	+sorry for being late - my battery is broken, so I had to move to the office
 Apr 25 17:08:19 <arre>	+Thiugh 1 hour wont hurt too much.
 Apr 25 17:08:24 <aleale>	+sorry I am late - networktrouble
 Apr 25 17:08:33 <stakkars>	+and this was not a nice night at all - nevermind
 Apr 25 17:08:34 <hpk>	ok, i'll try to keep the meeting at around 1 hour
 Apr 25 17:08:53 <hpk>	up front, i'd like to not try to resolve every topic that turns up 
 Apr 25 17:09:09 <hpk>	but rather resolve to delegation and organising who cares for which area in separate chats 
 Apr 25 17:09:17 -->	pedronis (n=Samuele_@222-151-092-147.jp.fiberbit.net) has joined #pypy-sync
 Apr 25 17:09:29 <stakkars>	+that's the way to go!
 Apr 25 17:09:51 <hpk>	ok, then let me suggest a bit of structure
 Apr 25 17:09:59 <hpk>	pedronis: evening samuele! 
 Apr 25 17:10:18 <hpk>	the main issue is organising work for 0.9 
 Apr 25 17:10:26 <hpk>	which is scheduled to happen first half june 
 Apr 25 17:10:50 <stakkars>	+ACTION nods and grabs coffee
 Apr 25 17:11:12 <hpk>	regarding having a deeper look into the remainder of the EU project 
 Apr 25 17:11:24 <hpk>	we might not cover it during this meeting although it plays a role in the background 
 Apr 25 17:11:59 <hpk>	for the latter i suggest that we work on getting a full picture (until december) in May 
 Apr 25 17:12:18 <hpk>	which also co-incides with the consortium-level assessment of resources 
 Apr 25 17:12:27 <hpk>	resource usage and time 
 Apr 25 17:12:40 <mwh>	+i guess by may you mean "in iceland" ?
 Apr 25 17:12:49 <hpk>	maybe, yes, that might make sense 
 Apr 25 17:13:14 <hpk>	but logilab won't be there, i think, for xample 
 Apr 25 17:13:27 <auc>	+yup
 Apr 25 17:13:37 <mwh>	+hrm
 Apr 25 17:14:11 <hpk>	if there are no objections i suggest to discuss 0.9 now 
 Apr 25 17:14:13 <mwh>	+ still, it's going to be the largest in person gathering for a while
 Apr 25 17:14:17 <mwh>	+hpk: yes
 Apr 25 17:14:26 <hpk>	mwh: yes, we will certainly make some use of that 
 Apr 25 17:14:55 <hpk>	here is a list of topics that i suggest to discuss one after another and deciding what we do about it regaridng 0.9 
 Apr 25 17:15:08 <stakkars>	+mwh: my babelfish is sleeping. what do you mean by "still, it's going to be the largest in person gathering for a while"
 Apr 25 17:15:21 <auc>	+lots of people ?
 Apr 25 17:15:27 <auc>	+(will be there)
 Apr 25 17:15:29 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 17:15:42 <mwh>	+yes
 Apr 25 17:15:45 <hpk>	stakkars: 8-9 EU p�roject related people are there 
 Apr 25 17:16:09 <hpk>	ok, here is the list:
 Apr 25 17:16:13 <hpk>	1. stackless support
 Apr 25 17:16:13 <hpk>	2. ext compiler being able to produce extensions for CPython and PyPy
 Apr 25 17:16:13 <hpk>	3. GC framework integration + __del__ and maybe weakref
 Apr 25 17:16:13 <hpk>	4. high-level backend snapshots + documentation?
 Apr 25 17:16:13 <hpk>	5. logic/constraint related goals?
 Apr 25 17:16:13 <hpk>	6. _some_ amount of release polishing and updating documentation, fixing issues
 Apr 25 17:16:33 <hpk>	are you fine with going through them one by one and deciding about their 0.9 fate? 
 Apr 25 17:16:42 <stakkars>	+sure
 Apr 25 17:16:58 <arigo>	+yes
 Apr 25 17:17:05 <hpk>	is there anything more you'd like to add as a major topic? 
 Apr 25 17:17:14 <auc>	+hpk: ...
 Apr 25 17:17:25 <auc>	+what do you mean by logic/constraint "related goals" ?
 Apr 25 17:17:41 <hpk>	the question what (if anything) 0.9 should include 
 Apr 25 17:17:51 <hpk>	regarding wp09/wp10 
 Apr 25 17:17:51 <auc>	+constraint : yes
 Apr 25 17:17:58 <auc>	+logic : probably not
 Apr 25 17:18:03 <hpk>	auc: please not now, i'd like to try to keep some structure :) 
 Apr 25 17:18:10 <hpk>	but thanks anyway
 Apr 25 17:18:19 <hpk>	ok, first topic then is stackless support 
 Apr 25 17:18:29 <hpk>	which also has a report due in June IIRC 
 Apr 25 17:19:03 <mwh>	+well, i've now read stakkars's document
 Apr 25 17:19:16 <stakkars>	+I did some work on structuring this, and it turns out to be doable in rather short time.
 Apr 25 17:19:29 <auc>	+pickling ?
 Apr 25 17:19:33 <mwh>	+you think so?
 Apr 25 17:19:38 <mwh>	+auc: yes
 Apr 25 17:19:53 <hpk>	stakkars: you mean the full wp07? 
 Apr 25 17:20:06 <stakkars>	+given that - yes - we are able to identify and remove blocks in tail-position, this is the blocker, if any.
 Apr 25 17:20:20 <mwh>	+stakkars: you would seem to be approaching things from rather the other end of things than the current "stackless" code in pypy does
 Apr 25 17:21:05 <stakkars>	+no, the stackless code in PyPy approaches things from the other side that Stgackless does, and this is the reference :-)
 Apr 25 17:21:19 <mwh>	+well, ok
 Apr 25 17:21:30 <hpk>	either way, there is not a common approach yet 
 Apr 25 17:21:37 <mwh>	+but which side do you think tasklet pickling in pypy should come from?
 Apr 25 17:21:38 <stakkars>	+sure there is
 Apr 25 17:21:50 <arigo>	+can be make the precise goals more explicit?
 Apr 25 17:22:03 <arigo>	+s/be/we
 Apr 25 17:22:03 <mwh>	+(there is also other stackless stuff: channels, greenlets, maybe)
 Apr 25 17:22:07 <stakkars>	+sorry that I could not finish my document last nite.
 Apr 25 17:22:25 <stakkars>	+please let's stick with one topic at the time
 Apr 25 17:22:44 <mwh>	+ok
 Apr 25 17:23:24 <stakkars>	+the missing spot with stackless PyPy is that we create very many activation records which are not needed. 95 percent of them can be removed.
 Apr 25 17:23:52 <stakkars>	+and my approach is to exactly allow pickling in a context where this removal is possible.
 Apr 25 17:24:00 <arigo>	+stakkars: I'd still like to state the goals we are seeking more precisely
 Apr 25 17:24:19 <stakkars>	+was I not precise?
 Apr 25 17:24:19 <pedronis>	-well, is rather unclear how to do that, without changing the interpreter
 Apr 25 17:24:35 <stakkars>	+I don't think so.
 Apr 25 17:24:41 <pedronis>	-arigo: I think stakkars goals is to pickle as mostly a chain of python-level frames
 Apr 25 17:25:18 <stakkars>	+yes. going further would drive us into deeper problems right now, since we have no interface at all.
 Apr 25 17:25:30 <stakkars>	+the onl�y valid interface IMHO is the python frame.
 Apr 25 17:25:36 <arigo>	+but more precisely: is our first goal to pickle only chains of Python-level frames and give up in other cases, or cover the general case inefficiently and then progress to make it more efficient for the common case?
 Apr 25 17:26:12 <auc>	+arigo: what would be "other cases" ?
 Apr 25 17:26:33 <stakkars>	+from a POV about what we promised, I see no direct reason to go any further than Stackless did in the past.
 Apr 25 17:26:35 <arigo>	+auc: any situation where a Python function is not called just by a direct function call from another Python function
 Apr 25 17:27:03 <stakkars>	+arigo: actually, these cases do not differ so much.
 Apr 25 17:27:21 <stakkars>	+there is a hand-ful of real cases, where extra information is needed.
 Apr 25 17:27:51 <stakkars>	+this is when a series of calles cannot unwind without keepin state.
 Apr 25 17:27:59 <arigo>	+I somehow disagree with that, but that answers my question
 Apr 25 17:28:03 <stakkars>	+for instance: think about map()
 Apr 25 17:28:57 <pedronis>	-well, but some builtin are app-level defined
 Apr 25 17:29:01 <stakkars>	+there are ways to handle such cases, if it is worth the effort.
 Apr 25 17:29:24 <stakkars>	+one way is to move the problem to app-level, exactly.
 Apr 25 17:29:51 <arigo>	+I just wanted to make it clear that there was a very different approach of pickling at RPython level, which is general but full of other problems, which is not the approach you want
 Apr 25 17:29:57 <stakkars>	+another one is to create special frames or structures which take care.
 Apr 25 17:31:04 <arigo>	+so the work here is: implement normal pickling for various things, and provide an interface for RPython code to at least check the RPython call chain
 Apr 25 17:31:09 <stakkars>	+I understand that. In PyPy's current state, I can't see how to do this in a generally useful way.
 Apr 25 17:31:17 <arigo>	+...to check that we're in a simple case.
 Apr 25 17:31:42 <stakkars>	+this seems to be the simplest possible approach for now, yes.
 Apr 25 17:31:44 <arigo>	+stakkars: yes, I agree that pickling RPython frames is full of problems and somehow very fragile
 Apr 25 17:31:45 <mwh>	+ok
 Apr 25 17:31:56 <mwh>	+yes
 Apr 25 17:32:13 <mwh>	+you could do full-image dumping with only moderately extreme amounts of effort
 Apr 25 17:32:26 <mwh>	+but, well, who cares
 Apr 25 17:32:46 <stakkars>	+and I agree that I did not tell the full story, since my paper isn't finished. There are a handfulof different cases which need to be handled.
 Apr 25 17:32:47 <arigo>	+that's a feature I tend to consider mostly useless...
 Apr 25 17:32:54 <mwh>	+it's not that interesting a solution imho
 Apr 25 17:32:59 <arigo>	+indeed
 Apr 25 17:33:06 <pedronis>	-arigo: but even in the simple case you need ways to recreate the c stack or avoid it to be there
 Apr 25 17:33:16 <stakkars>	+mwh: I would agree with this if we had a flexible backend, where programs are data.
 Apr 25 17:33:18 <pedronis>	-ïs unclear to me how the intepreter needs to change to get that
 Apr 25 17:33:28 <arigo>	+pedronis: ah yes, we need to throw it away or rebuild it
 Apr 25 17:33:40 <Gromit>	+mwh, what do you mean by full image dump?
 Apr 25 17:33:58 <mwh>	+well, avoiding callbacks from external libraries, we can recreate the c stack
 Apr 25 17:34:11 <mwh>	+because this is how the stackless-in-pypy works
 Apr 25 17:34:12 <cfbolz>	+Gromit: being able to safe the _whole_ program
 Apr 25 17:34:12 <auc>	+Gromit: maybe something a la smalltalk/lisp
 Apr 25 17:34:21 <arigo>	+mwh: the problem is how to know which RPython-level values to put back into the RPython frames
 Apr 25 17:34:36 <Gromit>	+so i understood it right, well I would care
 Apr 25 17:34:39 <pedronis>	-arigo: yes
 Apr 25 17:34:42 <stakkars>	+mwh: I consider dumping the binary a fake solution.
 Apr 25 17:34:49 <mwh>	+i don't see why this is sooooooo hard
 Apr 25 17:34:51 <mwh>	+but also!
 Apr 25 17:34:54 <mwh>	+it's a dead topic
 Apr 25 17:34:54 <pedronis>	-unless we make the intepreter itself sort of stackless
 Apr 25 17:35:01 <xorAxAx>	+Gromit: nobody of them has tried smalltalk :)
 Apr 25 17:35:04 <mwh>	+feel free to enlighten me later
 Apr 25 17:35:09 <hpk>	anyway
 Apr 25 17:35:21 <hpk>	i don't think we can fully resolve this without sorting out some more details in written form 
 Apr 25 17:35:25 <auc>	+going this road would kill parts of wp9
 Apr 25 17:35:33 <auc>	+(as we see it)
 Apr 25 17:35:35 <hpk>	so here is a suggestion
 Apr 25 17:35:36 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 17:36:01 <hpk>	stakkars should complete his document some more until end of the week 
 Apr 25 17:36:15 <hpk>	and others may want to amend it or describe a different approach 
 Apr 25 17:36:20 <stakkars>	+better today, or it won't happen :-)
 Apr 25 17:36:46 <hpk>	and then at least stakkars, arigo, mwh and pedronis get together and agree on an approach (and anyone can join who wants to in this discussion)
 Apr 25 17:36:55 <stakkars>	+I will try to describe how to identify removable code paths.
 Apr 25 17:36:57 <hpk>	is that agreeable? 
 Apr 25 17:37:00 <mwh>	+stakkars: are you able to devote serious time between now and iceland on implementing this stuff?
 Apr 25 17:37:08 <mwh>	+hpk: yes
 Apr 25 17:37:29 <stakkars>	+sure! I want all this stuff off my table until then.
 Apr 25 17:38:04 <mwh>	+cool
 Apr 25 17:38:30 <stakkars>	+on the other question: the missing stackless interface will be done by an expert on this.
 Apr 25 17:38:32 <hpk>	we need a common approach and i want at least the four people i mentioned to agree on it, so arigo and pedronis, are you fine with that as well? 
 Apr 25 17:38:33 <mwh>	+btw
 Apr 25 17:38:37 <mwh>	+i am on holiday next week
 Apr 25 17:38:53 <mwh>	+don't expect me to comment when i'm backpacking in the highlands :)
 Apr 25 17:39:19 <hpk>	well, you should try to resolve it until end this week, i'd say 
 Apr 25 17:39:22 <arigo>	+hpk: yes, though I now see pedronis' objections as important
 Apr 25 17:39:39 <arigo>	+but that should not be discussed here
 Apr 25 17:39:48 <stakkars>	+which objectioms? did I forget something?
 Apr 25 17:40:37 <hpk>	arigo: i wasn't implying a consensus or that everyone agrees already
 Apr 25 17:41:01 <hpk>	the fact is that tasklet pickling is just _one_ issue we are dealing with 
 Apr 25 17:41:06 <arigo>	+stakkars: no, I think you've mostly thought it out, but we'll need to state it clearly: how to rebuild the interp-level frames when restoring (not now, put it in the docs)
 Apr 25 17:41:27 <arigo>	+hpk: I know, I wanted to see if there was a critical problem, but not necessarily
 Apr 25 17:41:35 <stakkars>	+ok ok, I'll do the fine-print :-)
 Apr 25 17:41:36 <arigo>	+hpk: so we can move on as far as I'm concerned
 Apr 25 17:41:41 <hpk>	pedronis: are you ok with being part of the decision group? 
 Apr 25 17:41:52 <arigo>	+stakkars: :-)
 Apr 25 17:41:57 <pedronis>	-yes
 Apr 25 17:42:03 <hpk>	ok, then we are settled for that 
 Apr 25 17:42:15 <pedronis>	-(tomorrow is break day here btw)
 Apr 25 17:42:19 <stakkars>	+what was auc's concern, was there a contradiction?
 Apr 25 17:42:34 <hpk>	mwh: can you care to co-ordinate this decision and make an appointment / posting it to pypy-dev? 
 Apr 25 17:42:56 <stakkars>	+pedronis: did you just invite me for discussion, or the opposite?
 Apr 25 17:42:57 <hpk>	otherwise let me note that WP07 contains more issue than just tasklet pickling 
 Apr 25 17:43:02 <auc>	+stakkars: we think we depend on stackless pickling mecanisms to make part of wp9 work
 Apr 25 17:43:02 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 17:43:12 <mwh>	+given the amount of rushing around i'm doing, i'm not sure i'm the best man for the job
 Apr 25 17:43:21 <auc>	+stakkars: note that i don't understand anything about the issues involved
 Apr 25 17:43:23 <hpk>	i see, arigo, can you care? 
 Apr 25 17:43:25 <stakkars>	+this is a thing I wished you had told me some months ago.
 Apr 25 17:43:27 <arigo>	+stakkars, auc: the conclusion was that full-program dumping is not useful for wp9, which is fine
 Apr 25 17:43:36 <auc>	+and possible you were talking about some mecanisms which do not conern us
 Apr 25 17:43:40 <stakkars>	+until now, nobody every relied on this feature.
 Apr 25 17:43:48 *	hpk �would really like to have for all the issues exact people caring for things and not just leave things in the air 
 Apr 25 17:44:08 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 17:44:18 <auc>	+stakkars: we stated, months ago that thread pickling was a dependency for us
 Apr 25 17:44:23 <cfbolz>	+yes
 Apr 25 17:44:27 <auc>	+but no problem
 Apr 25 17:44:29 <pedronis>	-stakkars: no, that tomorrow I'm not going to be around
 Apr 25 17:44:43 <arigo>	+hpk: I'll send a note with a meeting time on Thursday then
 Apr 25 17:44:51 <stakkars>	+you'll get it, but probably not more than Stackless can give you
 Apr 25 17:44:58 <xorAxAx>	+auc: is it documented? :)
 Apr 25 17:44:58 <arigo>	+if that's fine with all of you
 Apr 25 17:45:16 <auc>	+xorAxAx: not published, but i can do something about that
 Apr 25 17:45:24 <hpk>	ok, so the tasklet pickling issue is delegated to arigo, stakkars, pedronis and mwh to sort out and agree on 
 Apr 25 17:45:42 <mwh>	+hpk: +1
 Apr 25 17:45:44 <stakkars>	+aye aye
 Apr 25 17:45:48 <auc>	+we'de like to know more in details the feature set ...
 Apr 25 17:46:06 <hpk>	auc: you may also write down some features you need, if you like, ok? 
 Apr 25 17:46:14 <arigo>	+ok
 Apr 25 17:46:15 <auc>	+i'll post them soon
 Apr 25 17:46:19 <hpk>	good, thanks
 Apr 25 17:46:43 <stakkars>	+I guess they want to pickle from interpreter-level, which I think is doable as well with similar restrictions
 Apr 25 17:47:03 <hpk>	just so we don't forget it: wp07 contains more (pointer tagging, pre-emptive scheduler, study memory<->speed tradeoffs, object layout, multimethod optimisations) 
 Apr 25 17:47:16 <stakkars>	+it is just necessary to tame myriads of activation records, this is all I'm saying.
 Apr 25 17:47:29 <hpk>	and i'd dare to say it's doubtful we'll get all that until June including an EU report, or does anyone disagree? :) 
 Apr 25 17:48:01 <stakkars>	+I can take the pre-emptive scheduler as well.
 Apr 25 17:48:20 <stakkars>	+having that ready before June.
 Apr 25 17:48:26 <hpk>	i'd like to not discuss that now, but we should not think that WP07 is done by caring/resolving tasklet pickling 
 Apr 25 17:48:29 <mwh>	+well, we can argue we've done _some_ of those things
 Apr 25 17:48:33 <hpk>	yes, i know 
 Apr 25 17:48:53 <hpk>	still we need to look into things a bit more there
 Apr 25 17:49:07 <hpk>	latest in May (when we plan for the rest of the project) 
 Apr 25 17:49:19 <hpk>	ok, so topic 1. for release 0.9 is so fr handled 
 Apr 25 17:49:21 <hpk>	let's head on 
 Apr 25 17:49:28 <hpk>	2. ext compiler being able to produce extensions for CPython and PyPy
 Apr 25 17:50:06 <--	auc has quit (Remote closed the connection)
 Apr 25 17:50:06 <hpk>	here again, we need agreement on how we go about it for 0.9, including the actual approach 
 Apr 25 17:50:25 <hpk>	i presume that everyone is familiar with the pypy-dev posts related to the topic 
 Apr 25 17:50:27 <stakkars>	+what is the actual approach
 Apr 25 17:50:54 -->	auc (n=auc@logilab.net2.nerim.net) has joined #pypy-sync
 Apr 25 17:51:03 <arigo>	+at the moment I'm progressing on the cpyobjspace
 Apr 25 17:51:04 <stakkars>	+you don't mean the half-way that I've taken, but Armin's new approach, I guess?
 Apr 25 17:51:20 <arigo>	+the two approaches can converge at some point
 Apr 25 17:51:24 <stakkars>	+(which I like very much)
 Apr 25 17:51:32 <hpk>	i was just refering to the pypy-dev posts and indeed armin did describe his ideas there to some detail 
 Apr 25 17:51:35 <arigo>	+for now the first goal would be to translate a simple MixedModule to CPython
 Apr 25 17:51:45 <arigo>	+with no SomeObjects :-)
 Apr 25 17:51:58 <arigo>	+well, progress is good, basically
 Apr 25 17:52:11 <stakkars>	+I wanted, but then didn't try to defend mine, since I agree that Armin's is the way to go.
 Apr 25 17:52:50 <hpk>	ok, so we'll base the ext-compiler on the rctypes+cpyobjspace+explicit wrapping approach.
 Apr 25 17:53:00 <arigo>	+stakkars: keep your code in a corner, I know that removing some of this space.xyz() boilerplate will be nice later :-)
 Apr 25 17:53:19 <stakkars>	+on the other hand, I would appreciate to send SomeObjects into never-never-land
 Apr 25 17:53:28 <mwh>	+i had a vague thought about this a few days ago, but this probably isn't the place...
 Apr 25 17:53:53 <mwh>	+(for a SomeGenericObject as well as the "i don't know" SomeObject)
 Apr 25 17:54:01 <hpk>	ok, i don't hear any disagreements so far 
 Apr 25 17:54:03 <hpk>	a question: 
 Apr 25 17:54:20 <hpk>	how exactly is a user supposed to use the "ext-compiler"? 
 Apr 25 17:54:30 <stakkars>	+me too, I'd like to keep the annotation instead of loosing it. Well, wrong place...
 Apr 25 17:54:49 <arigo>	+mwh, stakkars: seems like we all thought about this
 Apr 25 17:55:15 <stakkars>	+you bet why I can't sleep since weeks
 Apr 25 17:55:16 <arigo>	+hpk: for now, the goal is: write a MixedModule for PyPy and run a command-line utility
 Apr 25 17:55:21 <mwh>	+arigo: ok
 Apr 25 17:55:22 <mwh>	+later!
 Apr 25 17:55:37 <hpk>	arigo: which can produce a cpython ext
 Apr 25 17:55:44 <arigo>	+hpk: yes, you get a .so for CPython with no extra effort
 Apr 25 17:56:02 <hpk>	ok
 Apr 25 17:56:15 <arigo>	+there will also be a simple way to import and test the MixedModule directly on top of CPython
 Apr 25 17:56:27 <arigo>	+by running it with the CPyObjSpace, which works well already in simple tests
 Apr 25 17:56:28 <stakkars>	+ok, modulo a non-existent space variable, and if you use the interp-level part, only, then I have something like that ready
 Apr 25 17:56:29 <hpk>	arigo: are you going to care for that up to the point that this works reasonably? (i know you are far but still :)) 
 Apr 25 17:56:52 arigo arre Apr 25 17:56:57 <hpk>	arigo: the testing part sounds great :) 
 Apr 25 17:57:00 <arigo>	+actually I don't think I'm that far any more, so yes :-)
 Apr 25 17:57:01 <stakkars>	+and I'm of course happy to move things to CPyObjSpace
 Apr 25 17:57:20 <mwh>	+hehe
 Apr 25 17:57:34 <hpk>	ok, so arigo heads off and finishes this and maybe should then post to pypy-dev (well ahead of 0.9) so that people can feedback and try it out on some things (maybe also in iceland) 
 Apr 25 17:57:34 <arigo>	+it all falls into place magically also thanks to all the pyobj.py magic that creates the correct wrappers in genc
 Apr 25 17:57:59 <hpk>	everybody fine with this? 
 Apr 25 17:58:06 <arigo>	+ACTION agrees
 Apr 25 17:58:19 <stakkars>	+ACTION wonders but of course agrees
 Apr 25 17:58:28 <pedronis>	-+1
 Apr 25 17:59:24 <stakkars>	+I need a short break -- my stomach...
 Apr 25 18:00:11 <hpk>	ok, i take it that the others at least don't disagree, but wouldn't mind to hear explicit opinions 
 Apr 25 18:00:20 <cfbolz>	+I agree, fwiw
 Apr 25 18:00:34 <mwh>	+i agree
 Apr 25 18:00:36 <auc>	+no opinion
 Apr 25 18:00:37 <aleale>	++1
 Apr 25 18:00:45 <stakkars>	+tis++
 Apr 25 18:01:00 <hpk>	thanks :)
 Apr 25 18:01:08 <hpk>	next topic then 
 Apr 25 18:01:11 <hpk>	3. GC framework integration + __del__ and maybe weakref
 Apr 25 18:01:36 <hpk>	cfbolz: following up on your gc integration work with samuele, you are now heading for __del__, right? 
 Apr 25 18:01:54 <cfbolz>	+I am currently working on testing the gcs differently, which is a mess, but basically yes
 Apr 25 18:02:12 <stakkars>	+I didn't understand that one. There is  __del__, isn't it? Or dependent from which gc it is?
 Apr 25 18:02:21 <cfbolz>	+stakkars: yes, not for all gcs yet
 Apr 25 18:02:37 -->	Gromit_ (n=gek@codespeak.net) has joined #pypy-sync
 Apr 25 18:02:56 <cfbolz>	+stakkars: it works for boehm and refcounting
 Apr 25 18:03:01 <cfbolz>	+but not for mark and sweep
 Apr 25 18:03:05 <hpk>	question is if we shouldn't at least try to get a weakref module working 
 Apr 25 18:03:20 <hpk>	it may not be crucial for 0.9 exactly but it's a long standing issue and it's good to have that resolved at some point 
 Apr 25 18:03:31 <--	Gromit has quit (Nick collision from services.)
 Apr 25 18:03:51 ---	Gromit_ is now known as Gromit
 Apr 25 18:03:52 <hpk>	any opinions on that? 
 Apr 25 18:03:55 <arigo>	+what is the status of the idea of implementing weakrefs purely at interp-level, by playing with __del__?
 Apr 25 18:03:56 <stakkars>	+I'd like to understand why weakref is a problem.      wrong list, I know
 Apr 25 18:04:08 <cfbolz>	+arigo: it works, but is extremely slow for boehm
 Apr 25 18:04:12 <mwh>	+arigo: wasn't it that it murdered performance?
 Apr 25 18:04:23 <arigo>	+what about using extra objects?
 Apr 25 18:04:25 <stakkars>	+well, I am (hust) using weakrefs. :->
 Apr 25 18:04:36 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 18:04:40 <arigo>	+as in, we have a field that is usually NULL but can point to an object with a __del__...
 Apr 25 18:04:41 <cfbolz>	+arigo: ?
 Apr 25 18:04:50 <cfbolz>	+ah
 Apr 25 18:04:58 <arigo>	+then we pay the __del__ penalty only if there is a weakref actually taken to that object
 Apr 25 18:05:10 <cfbolz>	+yes, could possibly work
 Apr 25 18:05:20 <arigo>	+then it's a quick hack to try
 Apr 25 18:05:21 <cfbolz>	+and could be tried reasonably easy, I guess
 Apr 25 18:05:25 <cfbolz>	+:-)
 Apr 25 18:05:28 <hpk>	ok, let's do that then :) 
 Apr 25 18:05:38 <stakkars>	+right now we are missing an operation that would handle this field correctly
 Apr 25 18:05:49 <arigo>	+stakkars: no, I don't think so
 Apr 25 18:05:59 <cfbolz>	+the cool thing about this approach would be that it wporks for all gcs that support __del__
 Apr 25 18:06:03 <arigo>	+it's just a plain RPython trick
 Apr 25 18:06:06 <cfbolz>	+yes
 Apr 25 18:06:40 <stakkars>	+I'm always happy to get enlightened   (again not here of course)
 Apr 25 18:06:46 <hpk>	me too 
 Apr 25 18:06:58 <cfbolz>	+I guess I could write that done until end this week
 Apr 25 18:07:05 <cfbolz>	+or maybe even just try it
 Apr 25 18:07:18 <hpk>	ok, try it out then. 
 Apr 25 18:07:41 <stakkars>	+ACTION sorry have to leave for 3 minutes
 Apr 25 18:07:44 <hpk>	i think we should find out how we can get to supporting weakref some time not too far away
 Apr 25 18:08:02 <mwh>	+ok, that all sounds good :)
 Apr 25 18:08:06 <hpk>	so i think we can close the topic for now 
 Apr 25 18:08:07 <cfbolz>	+indeedy
 Apr 25 18:08:10 <cfbolz>	+think so
 Apr 25 18:08:29 <hpk>	4. high-level backend snapshots + documentation?
 Apr 25 18:09:10 <hpk>	i suggest we ask Antonio (and maybe Seo) to document in May the status and usability of their ootype-based backends and that we mention it in the release 
 Apr 25 18:09:50 <hpk>	it's not strictly EU related but it's part of the project and we should thus think of it accordingly 
 Apr 25 18:10:02 <arigo>	+yes, I think it will attract people too to see things compiled for very different platforms
 Apr 25 18:10:10 <arigo>	+maybe Jython people too
 Apr 25 18:10:27 <arigo>	+(there was a Parrot guy the other day on #pypy)
 Apr 25 18:10:34 <hpk>	yes, in some sense "0.9" is a "community release" :) 
 Apr 25 18:10:38 <--	mwh has quit (Remote closed the connection)
 Apr 25 18:11:07 -->	mwh (n=mwh@fwstups.cs.uni-duesseldorf.de) has joined #pypy-sync
 Apr 25 18:11:18 <hpk>	if everyone is fine with it, i'll ask Antonio (who needs to write up stuff for his thesis early July anyway :)
 Apr 25 18:12:07 <arigo>	+yes, also if other people want to step in they are welcome (nikh, ericvrp... hint hint)
 Apr 25 18:12:07 <hpk>	pedronis, arre: isn't Seo heading into a CL backend based on ootypes as well? 
 Apr 25 18:12:11 <mwh>	+hehe
 Apr 25 18:12:41 <pedronis>	-hpk: yes, the work happening here on the CL backend is ootype based
 Apr 25 18:13:10 <hpk>	pedronis: can you see at the end of the sprint where things are and if Seo or someone else wants to work further on it and document it for 0.9? 
 Apr 25 18:13:41 <pedronis>	-will ask
 Apr 25 18:13:43 <nikh>	+ACTION wakes up
 Apr 25 18:13:58 <hpk>	nikh: hey nikh, indeed i forgot to ask you about gensqueak :) 
 Apr 25 18:14:05 <nikh>	+unfortunately i won't have much time in may/june for pypy ... but maybe i can help a bit with ootypesystem documentation.
 Apr 25 18:14:26 <auc>	+i'd happily hack some bits of gencl
 Apr 25 18:14:41 <hpk>	sounds all good, ok then, i think that settles this topic 
 Apr 25 18:14:53 <hpk>	5. logic/constraint related goals?
 Apr 25 18:15:21 <hpk>	origianlly we promised to have an "initial constraint satisfaction engine" ready in May i think 
 Apr 25 18:15:31 <auc>	+basic constraint stuff is there
 Apr 25 18:15:35 <auc>	+without doubt
 Apr 25 18:15:45 <auc>	+ah, but does it translate ?
 Apr 25 18:16:05 <auc>	+i postponed this when i reached eval()
 Apr 25 18:16:26 <auc>	+which should disappear with the help of wp10 (maybe)
 Apr 25 18:16:32 <auc>	+s/should/might
 Apr 25 18:16:36 <hpk>	ok
 Apr 25 18:17:10 <auc>	+logic programming needs help
 Apr 25 18:17:11 <stakkars>	+re
 Apr 25 18:17:21 <hpk>	auc: i think d09.1 is a good candidate for an intermediate EU report, btw
 Apr 25 18:17:27 <auc>	+and we decided it would come from tasklet *cloning*
 Apr 25 18:17:33 <hpk>	because originally the deadline for an initial engine was May or June 
 Apr 25 18:18:06 <auc>	+it's ok
 Apr 25 18:18:15 <auc>	+well it depends
 Apr 25 18:18:17 <stakkars>	+cloning will be possible. Not supporting continuations in the first place, but virtually
 Apr 25 18:18:20 <auc>	+it does not translate
 Apr 25 18:18:28 <stakkars>	+by unpicklijng. I will elaborate on that.
 Apr 25 18:18:49 <auc>	+cloning by pickling, yes
 Apr 25 18:18:56 <auc>	+sounds heavy and performance killing
 Apr 25 18:18:58 <auc>	+but ...
 Apr 25 18:19:02 <auc>	+we want features first
 Apr 25 18:19:11 <stakkars>	+gee, not at all.
 Apr 25 18:19:23 <auc>	+ah ?
 Apr 25 18:19:26 <auc>	+nice, then
 Apr 25 18:19:55 <stakkars>	+pickling can be made very cheap, especially if you avoid to create the pickle at all.
 Apr 25 18:20:00 <auc>	+stakkars: because when doing search we might want to clone a lot ...
 Apr 25 18:20:12 <auc>	+stakkars: absolutely we're not intersted in the pickle
 Apr 25 18:20:37 <auc>	+so that's good news
 Apr 25 18:20:41 <stakkars>	+you just use the interface to reak the object into its spare parts, then re-assemble it. No strings attached :-)
 Apr 25 18:20:48 <stakkars>	+break
 Apr 25 18:20:49 <hpk>	auc: ok, but regarding 0.9: can you write up your status and begin to document your approaches so they can be advertised and snapshotted with 0.9? Together with missing/blocking features from your perspectives? 
 Apr 25 18:21:04 <auc>	+hpk: yes
 Apr 25 18:21:16 <hpk>	thanks
 Apr 25 18:21:30 <hpk>	then i think that we can head to the last topic for 0.9 
 Apr 25 18:21:42 <hpk>	6. _some_ amount of release polishing and updating documentation, fixing issues
 Apr 25 18:22:07 <stakkars>	+auc: the tiny difference to continuations is that I can produce a clone for you, which is not identical. The latter would be an order of magnitude harder, see Stackless 10
 Apr 25 18:22:35 <auc>	+what do you mean by 'not identical' ?
 Apr 25 18:22:44 <hpk>	here i note that not many people signed up for any issues currently marked as 0.9 in the tracker
 Apr 25 18:22:49 <cfbolz>	+stakkars, auc: next topic :-)
 Apr 25 18:23:13 <stakkars>	+a different object. continuations keep object identity, re-startable many times.
 Apr 25 18:23:17 <stakkars>	+oki
 Apr 25 18:23:31 <auc>	+hm, we'll see
 Apr 25 18:23:40 <auc>	+it'l be fine
 Apr 25 18:24:19 <stakkars>	+ACTION hopes so, since everything requiring full continuations has turned out to be insane during the last 7 years
 Apr 25 18:25:00 <auc>	+stakkars: don't worry
 Apr 25 18:25:24 <hpk>	so are there any suggestions? 
 Apr 25 18:25:33 <auc>	+uh ?
 Apr 25 18:25:36 <hpk>	i personally don't believe that 0.9 will just magically ship :)
 Apr 25 18:25:45 <stakkars>	+about what? sorry I lost track
 Apr 25 18:25:51 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 18:25:58 <hpk>	stakkars: i called for the last topic and discussing it 
 Apr 25 18:26:04 <hpk>	6. _some_ amount of release polishing and updating documentation, fixing issues
 Apr 25 18:26:05 <stakkars>	+ah, strategy about how to go for 0.9?
 Apr 25 18:26:23 <hpk>	we have some 20-30 issues for 0.9, not all of them crucial so can be postponed if neccessary
 Apr 25 18:26:29 <hpk>	however, postponing all of them is probably not a good idea 
 Apr 25 18:26:43 <hpk>	and we need everybody to go through the list and sign up for some 
 Apr 25 18:26:47 <hpk>	in order to distribute the work a bit 
 Apr 25 18:26:52 <hpk>	i think it's sensible to ask this of everyone 
 Apr 25 18:26:54 <cfbolz>	+would it make sense to do a round of everybody grabing issues that he feels like doing in the next two days and we see what's left
 Apr 25 18:26:59 <cfbolz>	+?
 Apr 25 18:27:31 <hpk>	yes, that makes sense IMO
 Apr 25 18:27:56 <arre>	+ACTION nods.
 Apr 25 18:27:57 <arigo>	+yes
 Apr 25 18:28:15 <cfbolz>	+but I also think we should devote some time to nice docs
 Apr 25 18:28:21 <cfbolz>	+to make the release accessible
 Apr 25 18:28:34 <cfbolz>	+otherwise there is not much sense in releasing :-)
 Apr 25 18:28:36 <hpk>	which mainly - i think - refers to updating the translation documentation 
 Apr 25 18:28:39 <mwh>	+note that thanks to holiday i won't grab any in the next days
 Apr 25 18:28:43 <hpk>	and writing some about the ext-compiler and stackless support 
 Apr 25 18:28:48 <cfbolz>	+hpk: yes
 Apr 25 18:28:53 <mwh>	+and will see what remains ungrabbed when i get back
 Apr 25 18:29:03 <cfbolz>	+:-)
 Apr 25 18:29:05 <hpk>	ok, but please take this seriously 
 Apr 25 18:29:13 <hpk>	if we all work on it a bit it's much easier to get something nice 
 Apr 25 18:29:34 <stakkars>	+I'd love to help with this - will do!
 Apr 25 18:29:59 <hpk>	ok, then i thank everybody for coming and for discussing constructively 
 Apr 25 18:30:14 <stakkars>	+bussies from LA
 Apr 25 18:30:33 <hpk>	and suggest that we get together around mid may latest in this constellation to assess how far we are and what remains
 Apr 25 18:30:52 <mwh>	+yes
 Apr 25 18:30:54 <nikh>	+ACTION -> bed
 Apr 25 18:30:55 <--	nikh has quit ("zzzz")
 Apr 25 18:30:57 <stakkars>	+are we doing a meeting on Thursday?
 Apr 25 18:31:05 <cfbolz>	+stakkars: probably
 Apr 25 18:31:06 <mwh>	+0.9 is aimed for ~9 june?
 Apr 25 18:31:11 <hpk>	mwh: yes, around that 
 Apr 25 18:31:27 <mwh>	+so work like crazy for a few weeks, assess again in iceland, then work to the release?
 Apr 25 18:31:30 <mwh>	+ok
 Apr 25 18:31:35 <stakkars>	+yup
 Apr 25 18:31:36 <hpk>	yes
 Apr 25 18:31:48 stakkars stedi67 Apr 25 18:32:14 <hpk>	i'd rather do a pypy-sync the next week and would send a note to pypy-dev accordingly
 Apr 25 18:32:24 <stakkars>	+I think meeting time could be more convenient for people if we let it happen at midnight LA time?
 Apr 25 18:32:50 <hpk>	unless anyone thinks we have some immediate pressing topics for this thursday
 Apr 25 18:32:54 <cfbolz>	+stakkars: well, the tokyo sprint is only this week, so the problem does not really occur again
 Apr 25 18:33:29 <arigo>	+it would, for next Thursday
 Apr 25 18:33:37 <hpk>	?
 Apr 25 18:33:39 <hpk>	right
 Apr 25 18:33:47 <cfbolz>	+yes, sorry
 Apr 25 18:34:02 <hpk>	that's why (and because of today's meeting and the ongoing tokyo sprint) i propose to go for the next meeting next week 
 Apr 25 18:34:32 <hpk>	mwh, cfbolz: please remind everyone regarding SoC btw :) 
 Apr 25 18:34:33 <arigo>	+stakkars: but LA midnight is quite early in the morning for Europe I fear
 Apr 25 18:34:47 <cfbolz>	+hpk: ah, yes
 Apr 25 18:34:51 <stakkars>	+and my idea is to try to get the largest time gap to where most people are sleeping.
 Apr 25 18:34:52 <Gromit>	+arigo, 9am AFAIK
 Apr 25 18:35:07 <stakkars>	+no, it is nine'o clock, which is an advantage
 Apr 25 18:35:15 <cfbolz>	+which is not a realistic time for me at _any_ weekday (lectures)
 Apr 25 18:35:47 <--	arre has quit (Remote closed the connection)
 Apr 25 18:36:01 <hpk>	can we go for 06:00 pm (UTC+2) next thursday 4th May? 
 Apr 25 18:36:25 <cfbolz>	+fine for me
 Apr 25 18:36:53 <arigo>	+ok here
 Apr 25 18:37:05 <stakkars>	+fine with me. Why this late, is anybody travelling, then?
 Apr 25 18:37:12 <Gromit>	+probably not
 Apr 25 18:37:20 <hpk>	stakkars: so that you don't have to get up too early :) 
 Apr 25 18:37:26 <hpk>	and can grab a coffee and such 
 Apr 25 18:37:30 <stakkars>	+I'm back on the 1st or 2nd of May
 Apr 25 18:37:39 <hpk>	aha, sorry i missed this 
 Apr 25 18:37:54 <hpk>	then it's all a bit less critical 
 Apr 25 18:38:16 <stakkars>	+you're nice.   No, I have to go back and save my son's ass.
 Apr 25 18:38:27 <hpk>	yeah, heard about that ... not easy 
 Apr 25 18:38:50 <hpk>	fwiw: the meeting is closed from my side (if it is not closed already)
 Apr 25 18:39:10 <arigo>	+thanks all
 Apr 25 18:39:16 <pedronis>	-ok, going to bed here
 Apr 25 18:39:19 <pedronis>	-bye
 Apr 25 18:39:23 <hpk>	good night
 Apr 25 18:39:25 <cfbolz>	+pedronis: night!
 Apr 25 18:39:44 <auc>	+bye