Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2008-04-01

16:33:12 * Pankrat ( has joined #scons 16:48:08 * jrandall ( has joined #scons 16:50:29 * garyo-home ( has joined #scons 16:55:36 <GregNoel> Hi, guys. Five more minutes to go... 16:57:22 <GregNoel> Pankrat, can you give us a preview of what you wanted to say for 235? 16:58:21 <Pankrat> Hi, I have counterexample which does not work correctly with implicit cache activated 16:58:58 <GregNoel> And you can't add a comment? What browser are you using? 16:58:59 <Pankrat> but I cannot post due to some error: "URL was not defined; This may indicate a bug in your browser." 16:59:23 <Pankrat> Firefox 2.0. I had posted an issue already, which worked 16:59:27 <GregNoel> And do you have cookies enabled? 16:59:32 <Pankrat> yes 17:00:02 <GregNoel> Can you mail it to one of us privately so we can add it? 17:00:23 <Pankrat> yes, one moment, BTW: I'm Ludwig :) 17:00:41 <GregNoel> Guten Abend! 17:01:24 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-a4dfaed744b2a8c7) has joined #scons 17:01:31 <stevenknight> hi all 17:01:36 <GregNoel> Hey 17:01:39 <Pankrat> Guten Abend :) 17:01:51 <GregNoel> Oder Morgen? 17:02:03 * bdbaddog ( has joined #scons 17:02:12 <stevenknight> hey bill 17:02:22 <Pankrat> both fits, mail has been sent 17:02:31 <bdbaddog> good evening! 17:02:35 <GregNoel> Anybody know where Bill and 17:02:46 <GregNoel> Oops, Bill's here, what about Ken? 17:02:49 <garyo-home> hi guys 17:03:19 <GregNoel> G'day! 17:03:40 <garyo-home> I may be a bit out of it tonight, sorry. 17:03:44 <garyo-home> But I'm here. 17:03:45 <stevenknight> does the wiki page link the spreadsheet? 17:03:57 <GregNoel> Yes, it should 17:04:16 <stevenknight> oh, duh, there it is 17:04:30 <garyo-home> So the agenda is starting with Greg's first issue list (391 issues)? 17:04:51 <GregNoel> Yes, just the first few 17:04:56 <garyo-home> good. 17:05:26 <bdbaddog> btw. I think we can chat via google docs and it would get attached to the spreadsheet. 17:05:33 <GregNoel> 1848 is first I believe 17:06:02 <GregNoel> No, it just seems to display; there's no record (that I could find) 17:06:08 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: that would be cool but let's try for that next time. 17:06:15 <bdbaddog> I thought we wer going through the 2002 and then 2003 bugs. which are in the spreadsheets first 17:06:17 <garyo-home> (if there are records anyway) 17:06:33 <GregNoel> I'm recording, I hope. 17:06:40 <garyo-home> me too I hope 17:06:45 <GregNoel> 1848? 17:06:46 <bdbaddog> me 3 17:07:21 <stevenknight> yeah, p3 17:07:29 <bdbaddog> I though 139 was the first bug to discuss ? 17:07:50 <GregNoel> No, the first few are from the issues list; no spreadsheet. 17:08:08 <GregNoel> Just the ones with priorities or votes. 17:08:11 <stevenknight> link's on the wiki page 17:08:16 <bdbaddog> ahh o.k. there now. 17:08:35 <stevenknight> damn, I wash my laptop had a bigger screen right now 17:09:07 <GregNoel> It seems to me that I've done what bug is about with no problems, but I looked for it and couldn't find it. 17:09:42 <GregNoel> I wish my second screen on my desktop was working... 17:10:09 <stevenknight> 1848: sort of nagging thing that shakes confidence when people hit it 17:10:10 <garyo-home> doesn't it cause a problem on linux because of no exe suffix? 17:10:12 <bdbaddog> anyone had time to try and reproduce 1848? 17:10:17 <stevenknight> yes re: no .exe suffix 17:10:26 <garyo-home> seems to me like a usual case of alias/filename conflict. 17:10:26 <stevenknight> yes, someone should check reproducibility 17:10:40 <stevenknight> if it's reproducible, what timeframe? 17:10:48 <stevenknight> 1.x? 17:10:59 <GregNoel> OK, or 2.x 17:11:18 <garyo-home> 2.x unless the error is really gross. 17:11:34 <bdbaddog> 2.x 17:11:40 <stevenknight> i can go with 2.x 17:11:40 <stevenknight> done 17:11:41 <garyo-home> how about 1966? 17:12:34 <stevenknight> i hate wading into the configure code 17:12:35 <bdbaddog> looks like 2 issues, doc plus functional ? 17:12:38 <stevenknight> yeah 17:12:48 <bdbaddog> maybe fix docs in 1.x, fix issue in 2.x ? 17:13:06 <GregNoel> good for me 17:13:16 <stevenknight> +1 17:13:19 <bdbaddog> should we split bug into two bugs then? 17:13:27 <stevenknight> +1 17:13:35 <GregNoel> Bill, will you do it? 17:13:46 <bdbaddog> yes. 17:13:52 <GregNoel> Next? 17:14:17 <garyo-home> 1969, looks like 17:14:25 <stevenknight> 1969: ugly problem 17:14:26 <garyo-home> i18n 17:14:35 <stevenknight> tip of the i18n iceberg 17:14:40 <GregNoel> Needs features not in 1.5.2; should be 2.x 17:14:50 <bdbaddog> 2.x 17:14:52 <garyo-home> (at least default tool setup can now be disabled, but that's not a good answer) 17:14:54 <garyo-home> 2.x 17:15:11 <stevenknight> sure, 2.x 17:15:13 <GregNoel> next? 17:15:20 <stevenknight> re; 1969 though 17:15:32 <stevenknight> no, wait, i'll update it myself 17:15:41 <stevenknight> he obviously didn't know you can disable the tool selection 17:16:05 <garyo-home> personal business, brb sorry 17:16:07 <garyo-home> keep going 17:16:30 <stevenknight> 1217 17:16:36 <stevenknight> (how far are we going on this list, BTW?) 17:16:41 <bdbaddog> 1217. anyone know the cache management stuff? 17:16:58 <bdbaddog> I think Greg said "aim for 2002 bugs, hope for 2003" to be handled. 17:16:59 <stevenknight> that'd b e me 17:17:16 <stevenknight> this needs a design for a mechanism, not a quick fix 17:17:16 <bdbaddog> this is not minor stuff is it? 17:17:18 <stevenknight> 2.x 17:17:21 <bdbaddog> 2.x 17:17:24 <GregNoel> ok 17:17:51 <GregNoel> 235 is in our 2002 list; I propose we deal with it there. 17:18:00 <bdbaddog> ok 17:18:04 <stevenknight> ok 17:18:17 <bdbaddog> 1959 then? 17:18:57 <stevenknight> i think 1.x, should be an easy fix, and it looks dumb if it doesn't work 17:19:03 * GregNoel stays silent, although 1959 was a very good year 17:19:35 <bdbaddog> 1.x unless its messy. would be my vote. :) 17:19:54 <stevenknight> 1.x then -- can always be pushed out if it gets bad 17:20:12 <GregNoel> on to 2002 then? 17:20:17 <bdbaddog> yup. 17:21:03 <bdbaddog> 139 - research 17:21:14 <stevenknight> research 17:21:39 <GregNoel> I think we should close it until there's a need 17:22:03 <stevenknight> hmm, now that you mention it, I'm okay with that 17:22:15 <GregNoel> wontfix? 17:22:31 <bdbaddog> if we close, will we loose a placeholder for the idea? 17:22:49 <stevenknight> sure -- I'd love to do better than ClearCase, but if there's no compelling user demand, that's just my ego at work 17:23:08 <GregNoel> {;-} 17:23:34 <GregNoel> consensus? 17:23:41 <stevenknight> bill, close it? 17:23:52 <bdbaddog> I guess the issue is is the bugtracker a good place to placehold ideas or should we move to a wiki page? 17:24:07 * stevenknight has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep") 17:24:15 <garyo-home> if it's just an idea, make it future 17:24:21 <GregNoel> future p5 then, the "will get to never" stack 17:24:32 <bdbaddog> o.k. that's fine with me. 17:24:48 <garyo-home> ok, I'm sort of here now 17:24:51 <garyo-home> 148? 17:25:19 <GregNoel> assign to Brandon for research 17:25:31 <bdbaddog> sounds good to me. 17:25:36 <garyo-home> ok 17:25:46 <GregNoel> done 17:25:49 <garyo-home> then on to 177 17:26:16 <garyo-home> already mostly works like he says 17:26:30 <bdbaddog> future. I think was the concensus 17:26:34 <GregNoel> yup 17:26:38 <garyo-home> ok by me. 17:26:45 <garyo-home> or close it. 17:27:06 <garyo-home> 193 = gsoc? 17:27:08 <GregNoel> 193, we have a viable proposal; 17:27:20 <bdbaddog> +1 17:27:36 <GregNoel> bypass until next time? 17:27:54 <garyo-home> or assume gsoc will get integrated in the 2.x timeframe and assign to that. 17:27:56 <bdbaddog> or after projects are accepted? 17:28:06 * stevenknight1 (n=stevenkn@ has joined #scons 17:28:07 <garyo-home> anyway, make a note in the bug 17:28:28 <stevenknight1> i'm back, had to run get the shuttle 17:28:35 <garyo-home> 194? I say wontfix 17:28:37 <Pankrat> assign bug to soc student? 17:28:48 <bdbaddog> 194 wontfix. 17:28:48 <stevenknight1> what was the consensus about where to record long-term ideas? issues or wiki? 17:28:57 <garyo-home> future, p5 17:28:57 <bdbaddog> issues as future 17:29:11 <stevenknight1> okay 17:29:12 <stevenknight1> 194 wontfis 17:29:15 <stevenknight1> wontfix 17:29:28 <GregNoel> Pankrat, yes; you'll get some too. 17:29:47 <Pankrat> :) 17:29:52 <garyo-home> great. 219? can o' worms. 17:30:12 <stevenknight1> yeah 17:30:30 <bdbaddog> what's the benefit of being able to do this? 17:30:55 <GregNoel> Virtual current working directory, names are more convenient. 17:31:34 <garyo-home> kind of like a mini-SConscript? 17:31:51 <GregNoel> Um, close enough. 17:31:52 <stevenknight1> how about wontfix, and if someone really wants it they can contribute code 17:31:58 <garyo-home> +1 17:32:01 <stevenknight1> no one seems to be beating down the doors for it 17:32:01 <bdbaddog> +1 17:32:05 <GregNoel> ok 17:32:15 <GregNoel> next? 17:32:26 <garyo-home> 232: reasearch, then if it's true, it's an easy fix 17:32:37 <stevenknight1> ??? I don't think it is 17:32:46 <GregNoel> assign to whom? 17:32:52 <bdbaddog> this is when a user has same header file name in more than one dir. 17:32:54 <bdbaddog> right? 17:32:55 <stevenknight1> it's replicating a quirky behavior in MSVC's preprocessor 17:33:04 <garyo-home> steven: I don't think it's true either, never heard of that behavior 17:33:10 <garyo-home> but can't prove it. 17:33:21 <stevenknight1> ah, if that's the case, then it is easy: INVALID 17:33:22 <GregNoel> research? 17:33:37 <stevenknight1> or just close it, it's old and no one else has complained 17:33:40 <bdbaddog> invalid. 1 guy reported it 6 years ago. 17:33:48 <bdbaddog> and never complained again? 17:33:49 <garyo-home> i think so too. 17:33:51 <GregNoel> ok, invalid 17:34:13 <garyo-home> 243? 17:34:20 <Pankrat> 235 got lost? 17:34:21 <stevenknight1> not 235? 17:34:35 <garyo-home> ok, 235 17:34:37 <stevenknight1> 235: research 17:34:44 <bdbaddog> research. 17:34:56 <Pankrat> I have a counter example, but could not post it 17:35:09 <Pankrat> (I've sent it to Greg) 17:35:10 <garyo-home> pankrat: that's exactly what's needed. 17:35:14 <GregNoel> research and report 17:35:14 <stevenknight1> excellent 17:35:47 <GregNoel> I'll add it to the bug; who should research? I can take a look. 17:35:48 <stevenknight1> Pankrat: you couldn't add it to the issue? 17:36:05 <Pankrat> yes tigris complained 17:36:10 <GregNoel> Before you were here, he reported a problem, maybe with his browser. 17:36:16 <stevenknight1> do we need to change your project role? 17:36:19 <stevenknight1> ah 17:36:39 <GregNoel> I thought anyone could comment? 17:36:41 <stevenknight1> okay, GregNoel update and research? 17:36:47 <GregNoel> works. 17:36:54 <garyo-home> good; now 243? 17:37:10 <garyo-home> Greg, you said Ignores would handle this? 17:37:13 <stevenknight1> 243: 1.x if it's really doc 17:37:31 <GregNoel> 1.0 if it's really doc 17:37:36 <bdbaddog> +1 17:37:40 <stevenknight1> +1 17:37:41 <bdbaddog> someone research it? 17:37:43 <garyo-home> so that means research, then assign? 17:37:52 <bdbaddog> I'll research it. 17:38:27 <GregNoel> (Maciej uses it for his stuff; it's known to work; I'll get you a ref.) 17:38:39 <GregNoel> next? 17:38:43 <stevenknight1> oh, good 17:38:50 <bdbaddog> 317 17:38:53 <stevenknight1> 317: wontfix 17:39:10 <GregNoel> +1 17:39:11 <stevenknight1> actully, we should then make -d one of the "ignored for compatibility" options that show up at the top of the help 17:39:19 <stevenknight1> i'll take it 17:39:24 <GregNoel> ok 17:39:26 <garyo-home> ok 17:39:35 <GregNoel> 1.0 then? 17:39:50 <garyo-home> same w/ 323 I hope? 17:39:51 <stevenknight1> yeah, it's not destabilizing 17:40:10 <GregNoel> next? 17:40:11 <stevenknight1> yes re: 323, i'll take that too 17:40:35 <bdbaddog> 324 2.x 17:40:39 <stevenknight1> 2.x 17:40:45 <garyo-home> ok 17:40:47 <GregNoel> I'll take it 17:41:11 <garyo-home> 325 is hard I think 17:41:29 <stevenknight1> might be, but i think it might be easy with overriding an individual Node's Decider() function 17:41:44 <stevenknight1> that's not supported by an API right now, but it's architecturally possible 17:41:50 <GregNoel> Or just a flag to ignore all dependencies 17:41:58 <garyo-home> future? 17:42:00 <stevenknight1> future 17:42:02 <bdbaddog> future 17:42:04 <GregNoel> ok 17:42:06 <garyo-home> Is anyone really wanting it? 17:42:09 <stevenknight1> no one's asking for it 17:42:10 <GregNoel> what priority? 17:42:19 <stevenknight1> p4? 17:42:19 <GregNoel> p3 then 17:42:21 <garyo-home> p3, average 17:42:25 <stevenknight1> p3 17:42:45 <garyo-home> I'd like 326 (-p, env.Dump()) 17:42:58 <GregNoel> ok, 1.x? 17:43:05 <GregNoel> or 1.0? 17:43:05 <garyo-home> OK, give it to me. 17:43:08 <garyo-home> 1.x 17:43:10 <stevenknight1> 1.x 17:43:13 <garyo-home> it's a new feature, not 1.0. 17:43:18 <GregNoel> ok 17:43:48 <stevenknight1> 327: 2.x, and i'll take it 17:43:55 <GregNoel> ok 17:43:59 <stevenknight1> unless someone else really wants in on environment stuff... 17:44:06 <bdbaddog> hey. I've gotta leave now. my comments are in the spreadsheets. 17:44:16 <stevenknight1> okay, thanks 17:44:19 <GregNoel> enjoy the sweat 17:44:36 <bdbaddog> if you have any questions about my comments which are worth waiting for shoot me an email.. otherwise enjoy the party.. 17:44:39 <garyo-home> 329: what is -w? 17:45:16 <stevenknight1> make -w tells it to print the "Entering/Exiting directory" messages 17:45:28 <GregNoel> not needed 17:45:32 <stevenknight1> the only time we do that is if they specify -C on the command line 17:45:43 <stevenknight1> give it to me, i'll move it to "ignored for compatibility" with the others 17:45:49 <GregNoel> ok 17:46:35 <stevenknight1> 322: consensus seems good, 1.x and Jim Randall 17:46:42 <jrandall> aye 17:46:42 <GregNoel> yes 17:46:50 <stevenknight1> 332 i meant 17:46:54 <GregNoel> Hi, Jim 17:47:05 <jrandall> hello! 17:47:11 <stevenknight1> hey jim 17:47:17 <GregNoel> that was quick; next? 17:47:21 <stevenknight1> 336: wontfix... 17:47:33 <GregNoel> yes 17:47:43 <stevenknight1> 341: wontfix... 17:47:48 <stevenknight1> (hey, we're on a roll here...) 17:48:19 <GregNoel> wontfix, aye 17:48:28 <stevenknight1> 342: fixed 17:48:32 <GregNoel> the spreadsheet helps... 17:48:38 <GregNoel> yes 17:48:53 <stevenknight1> yeah 17:49:11 <stevenknight1> 343: future, at a minimum 17:49:15 <GregNoel> 343, RANLIB 17:49:31 <stevenknight1> i don't think it's really just RANLIB 17:49:39 <GregNoel> Question: does SCons automatically apply RANLIB for those platforms that need it? Or does the user have to code something? 17:50:44 <stevenknight1> hang on, let me check 17:51:14 <stevenknight1> we just set it up in the Tool/ module 17:51:38 <GregNoel> It needs to be applied; that's 1.x 17:51:42 <stevenknight1> and only if we detect 'ranlib' installed independent from 'ar' 17:51:57 <stevenknight1> okay, so there are two parts to the issue here 17:52:13 <stevenknight1> make RANLIB independent from ar: 1.x 17:52:21 <stevenknight1> GCCTOOLCHAIN stuff: future 17:52:23 <stevenknight1> ??? 17:52:26 <GregNoel> +1 17:53:04 <GregNoel> Or just drop the GCC alternate toolchain stuff; no user need 17:53:24 <stevenknight1> okay, i can live with that 17:53:46 <stevenknight1> i can take RANLIB, I guess 17:53:54 <GregNoel> I'll mark it up. 17:54:01 <GregNoel> next? 17:54:26 <stevenknight1> 344: 1.x, mine 17:54:33 <GregNoel> What priority? 17:54:55 <stevenknight1> p2, i think 17:54:59 <GregNoel> done 17:55:23 <stevenknight1> 347: wontfix 17:55:24 <GregNoel> 347, 349, close 17:55:30 <stevenknight1> yes, yes 17:55:45 <stevenknight1> 353 close 17:56:18 <GregNoel> yes, no ego permitted {;-} 17:56:26 <stevenknight1> :-) 17:56:31 <stevenknight1> 356: wontfix 17:56:40 <GregNoel> yes 17:56:44 <stevenknight1> 374: wontfix 17:56:58 <GregNoel> yes 17:57:10 <stevenknight1> and that's all for 2002... 17:57:23 <GregNoel> next 2003 17:57:29 <GregNoel> 397? 17:57:37 <garyo-home> wow, i step out of the room and you're on to 2003 already! 17:57:47 <GregNoel> got to be quick 17:58:08 <stevenknight1> i didn't pre-scan these... 17:58:13 <garyo-home> nor me, sorry 17:58:24 <GregNoel> homework... 17:58:30 <stevenknight1> greg, is the issue link you sent sorted in this order? 17:58:47 <GregNoel> uh, not quite, but close enough 17:58:52 <GregNoel> two issues are out of order 17:58:58 <garyo-home> 397 looks like future to me 17:59:08 <garyo-home> or wontfix 17:59:10 <GregNoel> I accidently sorted them by issue id 17:59:22 <Pankrat> 397 wontfix: I prefer repos as they are 17:59:31 <Pankrat> justme 17:59:56 <garyo-home> 402 then? 18:00:12 <garyo-home> we should do something about this one, it's bit me. 18:00:15 <garyo-home> :-) 18:00:16 <stevenknight1> 397: wontfix 18:00:42 <stevenknight1> 402: give it to me, I'm revamping the Windows toolchain support 18:00:49 <stevenknight1> 2.x 18:00:54 <stevenknight1> p2 18:00:55 <garyo-home> agree 18:00:55 <GregNoel> done 18:01:19 <garyo-home> 409: irix is dead, i say wontfix. 18:01:26 <stevenknight1> 409: wontfix 18:01:29 <GregNoel> yes 18:01:31 <garyo-home> Besides, parallel builds on IRIX have never really worked right. 18:02:16 <stevenknight1> 416: i say wontfix 18:02:31 <garyo-home> it's interesting though 18:02:38 <garyo-home> future? 18:02:38 <GregNoel> Interesting, yes 18:02:44 <stevenknight1> strikes me as the sort of nice-sounding idea that probably has lots of unintended side effects due to statefulness 18:03:02 <stevenknight1> i can live with future 18:03:15 <GregNoel> There's an associated bug report with a model for doing it 18:03:28 <GregNoel> but it is intended for advanced users 18:03:39 <GregNoel> future is fine 18:03:40 <garyo-home> greg: where? 18:03:44 <garyo-home> ok, future 18:03:46 <stevenknight1> which bug report? am i missing a link? 18:04:07 <GregNoel> Isn't there one at the bottom of the bug? 18:04:31 <garyo-home> sorry, that. Yes, that's what's interesting. 18:05:12 <stevenknight1> bottom of 416? 18:05:16 <GregNoel> Oops, no link. wait. 18:06:45 <garyo-home> anyway, it's going to end up future. How about 433? 18:06:50 <GregNoel> 1933 18:07:09 <garyo-home> huh? 18:07:20 <stevenknight1> 1933 is the associated bug report to 416 18:07:24 <GregNoel> oops 1939 18:07:30 <GregNoel> yes 18:07:42 <GregNoel> "fast unsafe" 18:08:24 <stevenknight1> wow, hadn't really looked at that one 18:08:43 <stevenknight1> lots of evil statefulness... 18:09:00 <garyo-home> I really don't like that one (not that I understand it fully) 18:09:06 <stevenknight1> wait, not really, i misunderstood 18:09:13 <garyo-home> but it looks dangerous at best 18:09:26 <stevenknight1> doesn't strike me as related to 416, though 18:09:31 <GregNoel> advanced users, for sure, lots of warnings, but it would be fast. 18:09:41 <stevenknight1> the way i read it, 416 is "remember where I died, start there nxt time" 18:10:15 <GregNoel> But what they really all ask for is quick reaction to local SConscript. 18:10:31 <stevenknight1> but 416 is transparent to the user, 1939 requires SConscript changes 18:10:42 <GregNoel> or a command-line option. 18:10:46 <garyo-home> 1939 to me: future unless someone shows us some code 18:10:52 <Pankrat> well interactive solves this too 18:10:53 <stevenknight1> agree w/gary 18:11:06 <garyo-home> yes Pankrat 18:11:17 <GregNoel> somebody twisted my arm to put it in GSoC, so I did 18:11:25 <stevenknight1> i also think we can do what 1939 is asking now that the Big Signature Refactoring has changed the .sconsign format 18:11:30 <stevenknight1> that's one of its intended goals 18:11:39 <stevenknight1> ...and I guess that means I just signed up for 1939... :-) 18:11:54 <garyo-home> ok, but still future? 18:11:59 <stevenknight1> yeah, future 18:12:03 <GregNoel> p2? 18:12:06 <garyo-home> ok 18:12:09 <GregNoel> done 18:12:12 <stevenknight1> sure, p2 18:12:18 <GregNoel> same for 433? 18:12:20 <garyo-home> so how bout 433 I think is next 18:12:39 <stevenknight1> did we finish 416 before that digression? future? 18:12:52 <garyo-home> 433: I'm not an automake guy so those things look really specialized to me, I'd never use them. 18:12:56 <GregNoel> oops, same for 416 then? 18:13:10 <stevenknight1> 416: future 18:13:12 <garyo-home> I'm ok w/ 416 -> future 18:13:16 <GregNoel> p2? 18:13:18 <stevenknight1> 433: 2.x, me 18:13:24 <stevenknight1> ? 18:13:38 <garyo-home> do people really want 433? 18:13:39 <GregNoel> 433 p2? 18:13:49 <stevenknight1> not sure 18:13:53 <garyo-home> Can't it just be aliases etc.? 18:14:06 <GregNoel> no, it's more complex. 18:14:07 <stevenknight1> but i think i'll need to take a look at that as part of integrating Maciej's automake stuff 18:14:26 <garyo-home> ok, i see 18:14:29 <stevenknight1> it should all be part of finishing and documenting that so it works "naturally" for people migrating from autotools 18:14:38 <GregNoel> exactly 18:14:38 <stevenknight1> yes? 18:14:51 <stevenknight1> 433: 2.x, me, p2 18:14:54 <GregNoel> dpme 18:14:56 <garyo-home> ok 18:14:59 <GregNoel> oops, done 18:15:22 <garyo-home> 438: i like that one, just ignore the .sconsign. 18:15:41 <stevenknight1> yeah, that would be handy 18:15:43 <garyo-home> i say 2.x, p2 18:15:55 <stevenknight1> i think there's a make option that does something similar...? 18:15:55 <garyo-home> or maybe even 1.x 18:16:04 <GregNoel> Ah, it's a dup with 331 18:16:34 <stevenknight1> okay 18:17:03 <garyo-home> not exactly a dup though. 18:17:19 <garyo-home> 331 is "what if", 438 says actually redo everything. 18:17:22 <stevenknight1> oh, right: 331 is like -n, 438 really wants the build to happen 18:17:24 <stevenknight1> right 18:17:42 <garyo-home> 331 is harder due to signatures and generated code. 18:17:50 <GregNoel> No, -W does not add -n 18:18:14 <stevenknight1> no, but it doesn't actually do the build, does it? 18:18:19 <GregNoel> If you say -W, the file is rebuilt; if you add -n it will tell you what else is rebuilt 18:18:29 * ita has quit (Remote closed the connection) 18:18:33 <stevenknight1> oh, wow, I didn't know that 18:18:49 <stevenknight1> hey, i didn't notice that ita was here...! 18:18:56 <stevenknight1> you guys know who that was IRL? 18:18:58 <stevenknight1> is? 18:19:04 <garyo-home> no, who? 18:19:10 <stevenknight1> our good friend Thomas Nagy 18:19:14 <garyo-home> ah. 18:19:19 <stevenknight1> cool 18:19:40 <garyo-home> ... so 331 should get a note explaining what Greg said 18:19:47 <stevenknight1> agreed 18:20:26 <GregNoel> So close this as a dup? 18:20:51 <garyo-home> i just put the note in 331 but I say link them, don't close either as dup 18:21:09 <stevenknight1> guess so, if it really does behave like make -W 18:21:46 <GregNoel> I'll dig out the exact man page section from make and add it 18:21:46 <garyo-home> ok, if they're the same then fine 18:21:51 <garyo-home> good. 18:22:04 <GregNoel> 447? 18:22:08 <stevenknight1> 447: i say wontfix 18:22:13 <garyo-home> wontfix 18:22:15 <stevenknight1> way too complicated and specialized 18:22:24 <GregNoel> wontfix 18:22:35 <GregNoel> and Bill says wontfix 18:22:43 <stevenknight1> 448: wontfix 18:22:44 <Pankrat> if you ignore the text and only read the summary than it makes a little sense 18:22:48 <Pankrat> (447) 18:23:05 <Pankrat> but I have no good idea to implement it :( 18:23:38 <stevenknight1> agreed, it's not obvious how to do it 18:23:50 <GregNoel> Bill and I say wontfix, 448 18:23:55 <stevenknight1> 448: wontfix 18:23:58 <garyo-home> 448: wontfix 18:23:59 <GregNoel> done 18:24:26 <garyo-home> 449 can usually be done by massaging the action list. 18:24:36 <stevenknight1> of the Builder? 18:24:44 <garyo-home> yes 18:24:50 <GregNoel> API? 18:24:53 <garyo-home> That's how I do 'mt' on Windows now 18:25:12 <stevenknight1> i see 18:25:16 <garyo-home> I wouldn't mind AppendAction/PrependAction though 18:25:28 <garyo-home> (just thinking out loud) 18:25:39 <stevenknight1> actually, related but OT: how about adding pre_action= and post_action= keyword arguments to Builder calls, too 18:25:59 <GregNoel> Overkill? 18:26:04 <garyo-home> how's that better than a separate call? 18:26:14 <GregNoel> This isn't Perl 18:26:17 <stevenknight1> you may not want to modify the actual Builder itself 18:26:37 <garyo-home> If you're not modifying the builder, then pre_action === AddPreAction, right? 18:26:41 <stevenknight1> or the builder's action list 18:26:51 <stevenknight1> yes 18:27:10 <stevenknight1> but you wouldn't have to capture the return and call it separately 18:27:21 <stevenknight1> maybe that's just syntactic sugar and we don't need the extra complexity 18:27:39 <garyo-home> I think that's right 18:27:49 <stevenknight1> okay, move on 18:28:20 <GregNoel> 460, src_dir 18:28:20 <garyo-home> so 449 is wontfix then? 18:28:38 <stevenknight1> whoops, we're coming to my stop in a minute or two 18:29:07 <stevenknight1> i'm going to send something to the mailing list about branching 18:29:32 <GregNoel> run for home; will you be back? 18:29:36 <stevenknight1> i need a place for some stuff I have to work on for 2.x 18:29:42 <stevenknight1> it's about a 15 min. walk 18:30:06 <GregNoel> Without Bill and you, we should probably break here, then 18:30:14 <stevenknight1> okay, gotta go 18:30:20 <stevenknight1> catch you on the mailing list 18:30:22 * stevenknight1 has quit ("Leaving") 18:30:31 <garyo-home> so who' 18:30:34 <garyo-home> s left? 18:30:49 <Pankrat> I am. But I go to sleep now ... 18:30:56 <GregNoel> you and me, Ken never showed 18:31:00 <garyo-home> ok, let's just do 460 and break then. 18:31:05 <GregNoel> ok 18:31:15 <garyo-home> I think 460 just wants a better error message really. 18:31:16 <GregNoel> I'm of the opinion that src_dir should be removed until we know what it's supposed to do. 18:31:31 <garyo-home> :-/ 18:32:03 <GregNoel> Every time I've tried it, it hasn't worked, or it's done something I didn't expect. 18:32:21 <GregNoel> I don't think even a better error message can save it 18:32:25 <garyo-home> how about we make it 1.x but only add the error message to detect this case, then file a new bug for "remove src_dir unless someone can explain it" 18:32:40 <GregNoel> I'll buy that 18:32:41 <garyo-home> (this case being: src_dir without build_dir) 18:32:52 <GregNoel> yes. 18:33:07 <GregNoel> OK, I'll put that in the bug 18:33:31 <garyo-home> ok then, we'll pick up where we left off next time. Thanks! Greg, are you going to do all the data entry? 18:33:32 <GregNoel> Since you were host, you're done; I'll take care of fixing all the bugs. 18:33:54 <garyo-home> sorry I didn't really host much. I'm only about 50% present right now. 18:34:00 <garyo-home> exhausted. 18:34:07 <GregNoel> And I've got the IRC log; I can post that, too. 18:34:13 <garyo-home> ok, thx! 18:34:19 <garyo-home> bye then 18:34:24 <GregNoel> cul 18:34:36 * You have been marked as being away 18:34:43 * jrandall ( has left #scons 18:35:37 * Pankrat ( has left #scons 18:35:40 * garyo-home ( has left #scons