Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2008-05-27

13:05:55 * Azverkan (n=fakeuser@ has joined #scons 16:48:00 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-46e723d28b1b3479) has joined #scons 16:55:25 <stevenknight> GregNoel: are you here yet? 16:55:53 * garyo-home ( has joined #scons 16:58:09 <garyo-home> hi folks 16:58:45 <stevenknight> hi gary 16:58:57 <stevenknight> Greg doesn't seem to be here yet 16:59:55 <garyo-home> ok, I'm just starting in on the spreadsheet. 16:59:55 <GregNoel> Hello, am I late? 17:00:01 <garyo-home> nope, just in time. 17:00:09 <stevenknight> hi Greg 17:00:26 <GregNoel> We have relatives in town; we were out with them and just got back. 17:00:41 <stevenknight> ah, special thanks for making it, then 17:00:56 <GregNoel> Give me a sec to get set up 17:00:47 <stevenknight> hope we're not taking you away too much 17:01:06 <GregNoel> No, we'll see them again tomorrow. 17:02:13 <stevenknight> BTW, on the ReadWrite page, the 2007 Q1 link takes you to the same sheet as the Q4 link 17:02:16 <stevenknight> or takes me there, anyway 17:02:46 <stevenknight> unlikely we'll get that far today, of course, but for next week 17:03:07 <GregNoel> Yeah, the spreadsheet isn't ready yet. 17:03:02 <garyo-home> Unfortunately I only have 45 min tonight :-( 17:03:14 <GregNoel> OK, I'm ready 17:03:22 <stevenknight> okay, 2061 17:03:22 <GregNoel> Why only 45 min? 17:03:35 <garyo-home> kid duty 17:03:49 * stevenknight nods knowingly... 17:04:14 * GregNoel gets to miss all that fun... 17:04:21 <stevenknight> 2061: 1.x p3? 17:04:24 <garyo-home> Before we talk about the actual issues, can I ask about 1.x vs. 2.x in general? 17:04:29 <GregNoel> sure 17:04:29 <stevenknight> sure 17:04:33 <stevenknight> jinx 17:04:33 <GregNoel> jinx 17:04:42 <garyo-home> How much should we put into 1.x vs. deferring to 2.x? 17:04:59 <GregNoel> Depends on how long you expect 1.x to last 17:05:02 <garyo-home> 2061 is easy, for instance. But so are lots of others. 17:05:07 <stevenknight> i think we'll need to rebalance 1.x once we get past 1.0 anyway 17:05:16 <GregNoel> stevenknight, true 17:05:16 <garyo-home> Greg: right. Is there a 2.0 schedule? 17:05:44 <garyo-home> Are we thinking 2.0 this year for instance? 17:05:46 <GregNoel> None, other than some people say one month and some say one year. Probably between the two. 17:06:00 <stevenknight> yeah 17:06:00 <garyo-home> Greg: OK, that's sort of my thought too. 17:06:13 <stevenknight> my best guess is some time in Q4 17:06:19 <stevenknight> enough time for 1.x to soak 17:06:22 <garyo-home> OK, then I say 2061 should be 1.x. 17:06:30 <stevenknight> i'm okay with gut feel 17:06:41 <stevenknight> if we'd "like" something in 1.x for any reason, mark it as such 17:06:55 <stevenknight> we'll end up with too much 1.x, but then we just re-prioritize those to make it manageable 17:06:53 <GregNoel> I assume that once 1.0 is out and we've killed a little more of the backlog, we'll look at 1.x (and maybe 2.x p1) and adjust. 17:07:05 * stevenknight agrees w/GregNoel 17:07:15 <stevenknight> so 2061: 1.x p3 17:07:43 <garyo-home> stevenknight: ok 17:07:48 <GregNoel> Isn't 2061 the one that's just been on the mailing list? 17:07:54 <stevenknight> 2062: moot, I went ahead and checked in my fix about half an hour ago... :-) 17:08:06 <garyo-home> 2062: good 17:08:19 <stevenknight> also already RESOLVED the issue 17:08:26 <garyo-home> 2064 is also easy, so by same logic should be 1.x 17:08:30 <stevenknight> 2064: consensus 1.x p3 17:08:31 <stevenknight> right 17:08:46 <GregNoel> ok 17:08:51 <garyo-home> 2064 ok 17:08:53 <stevenknight> 2065: consensus 1.x p4, Rob Managan 17:09:40 <garyo-home> 2066: VS8 is the current version, we should support it well if we can 17:09:45 <garyo-home> (though I don't use it yet) 17:09:55 <stevenknight> 2066: i'm conflicted 17:10:09 <stevenknight> the fix looks like a no-brainer, but... 17:10:11 <garyo-home> Then let's do it in 1.x early on 17:10:24 <garyo-home> like 1.x p1? 17:10:35 <stevenknight> yes, 1.x p1 17:10:39 <GregNoel> done 17:10:47 <GregNoel> next is consensus 17:10:53 <garyo-home> yes. 17:10:55 <stevenknight> 2067: consensus dup 17:11:01 <garyo-home> I'll take 2068, good idea. 17:11:11 <stevenknight> 2068: cool, thanks 17:11:16 <garyo-home> I'll take up details on the list. 17:11:27 <stevenknight> i'd like p2 (since I need it too :-)) 17:11:45 <garyo-home> OK, fine w/ me. 17:11:55 <stevenknight> excellent, we're cruising 17:12:02 <GregNoel> done with the "current" spreadsheet, then; move on to the next? 17:12:03 <stevenknight> on to 2007 q4? 17:12:47 <stevenknight> 1740: consensus research, David 17:12:51 <GregNoel> done 17:13:15 <stevenknight> 1741: 1.x p3, stevenknight 17:13:27 <garyo-home> ok w/ me 17:13:28 <GregNoel> ok 17:14:05 <garyo-home> 1742 is a subprocess issue or something? 17:14:36 <GregNoel> I saw it as an issue with assuming that setting CC forced the C compiler selection 17:14:48 <stevenknight> 1742: i'm concerned it's a real problem that happens to be triggered by his weird stripped down CC = _ 17:14:59 <stevenknight> hmm, let me look at it again w/that in mind -- hang on... 17:15:26 <garyo-home> That code doesn't look right to me; the high 8 bits are supposed to be spawn status, the low 8 bits are return code 17:15:54 <garyo-home> (or other way around, sorry) 17:16:03 <stevenknight> but if it that code were that blatantly wrong, a lot of stuff would fail, not just this edge case 17:16:20 <garyo-home> stevenknight: yeah, I take it back -- it's OK as written 17:16:30 <stevenknight> i think the real problem here is that this compilation setting definitely shouldn't succeed 17:16:42 <stevenknight> but we pass back a return value that suggests the test passed 17:16:56 <GregNoel> No, setting CC is ignored, so TryXXX will succeed. 17:17:14 <GregNoel> He's expecting that setting CC will disable the C compiler 17:17:30 <garyo-home> anyway, research is needed. 17:17:58 <GregNoel> I'll take it. 17:18:01 <garyo-home> But has to be fixed by 1.x one way or another, so that's my vote. 17:18:12 <stevenknight> okay, i can go with 1.x 17:18:16 <GregNoel> done 17:18:39 <garyo-home> 1745, VS junk 17:18:54 <stevenknight> 1745: basically, i'm going to take everything VS-related as research 17:19:04 <garyo-home> OK w/ me, this is super low pri. 17:19:24 <GregNoel> ok, stevenknight, research 17:19:39 <stevenknight> yeah, i'm just going to revamp VS support pretty heavily 17:19:44 <garyo-home> 1746: untangle threaded output 17:19:55 <garyo-home> This is really hard, and error-prone. 17:20:15 <GregNoel> It's a dup; mark it and triage that one. 17:20:21 <stevenknight> i'm okay with dup 17:20:21 <garyo-home> 2.x p3? 17:20:28 <stevenknight> 2.x p3 17:20:29 <garyo-home> (ok, dup) 17:20:37 * bdbaddog ( has joined #scons 17:20:38 <stevenknight> on 1183 is fine 17:20:44 <stevenknight> hey bill 17:20:48 <GregNoel> hi, bill 17:20:50 <stevenknight> we're on th 2007 q4 spreadsheet 17:20:52 <bdbaddog> Hi. 17:20:57 <stevenknight> #1746, line 51 17:21:00 <garyo-home> Hi, Bill. 17:21:02 <bdbaddog> oh yeah. forgot there's a bug party. 17:21:22 <bdbaddog> I've gotta hit the road in like 10 minutes. So I'll be of no help today. sorry. 17:21:22 <stevenknight> no problem, you're obviously welcome if you have cycles 17:21:34 <stevenknight> that's cool 17:21:34 <GregNoel> 2.x p3 on 1183; agreed. 17:21:40 <stevenknight> done 17:22:08 <stevenknight> 1747: documentation, 1.0 p5 (like a lot of other doc issues) 17:22:17 <GregNoel> ok, done 17:22:24 <garyo-home> I seem to have a few doc things; assign it to me. 17:22:47 <stevenknight> 1748: 1.x p2 -- our code looks like it handles this right 17:22:56 <stevenknight> i really suspect this is in custom code for this project 17:23:15 <garyo-home> Push back, ask for testcase? 17:23:24 <stevenknight> hmm, not a bad idea 17:23:41 <stevenknight> oh, wait, unfortunately i think this is one where the user of a project submitted something to us 17:23:54 <stevenknight> that does suggest pushing it back, having him contact the original project 17:24:17 <stevenknight> i'll go ahead and answer the bug to that effect 17:24:26 <GregNoel> how about me, research, and I'll untangle it. 17:24:32 <GregNoel> I can try a test case. 17:24:55 <stevenknight> if you want, sure, go ahead 17:25:21 <GregNoel> done; next? 17:25:22 <stevenknight> 1.x, p2, greg -- done 17:25:40 <stevenknight> 1751: 1.x p3, me 17:25:49 <stevenknight> i think it's related to the other above, and #2015 17:25:50 <GregNoel> done 17:25:50 <garyo-home> agreed 17:26:12 <stevenknight> 1753: visual studio: research, stevenknight 17:26:15 <garyo-home> 1753: dup? 17:26:27 <stevenknight> maybe, just assign it to me and i'll take care of it if so 17:26:34 <GregNoel> done 17:26:55 <stevenknight> 1754: i think i put my comment on the wrong item, i think i intended that for 1753 17:27:26 <garyo-home> 1754 looks right to me. 17:27:29 <garyo-home> not a bug. 17:28:03 <GregNoel> not a bug, a feature request. 17:28:18 <stevenknight> right, maybe for a --clobber that will remove .sconsign 17:28:21 <stevenknight> or some such 17:28:23 <garyo-home> (I put my .sconsign and .sconf_temp stuff in my build dir, that way if I wipe that out I start from scratch.) 17:28:29 <stevenknight> good idea 17:28:39 <garyo-home> stevenknight: ok w/ that I guess 17:28:52 <GregNoel> scons -ccc 17:28:58 <garyo-home> :-/ 17:29:06 <stevenknight> sure, i could go with that 17:29:15 <stevenknight> either way, FEATURE... 17:29:16 <stevenknight> 2.x? 17:29:20 <garyo-home> 2.x 17:29:24 <stevenknight> p3 17:29:25 <GregNoel> We discussed this once before 17:29:34 <GregNoel> ok, 2.x p3 17:29:44 <stevenknight> probably, they all start to blur after a while... :-) 17:30:05 <stevenknight> 1755: 1.x p4, Greg 17:30:14 <GregNoel> 1755, consensus 17:30:30 <garyo-home> ok 17:30:34 <stevenknight> 1760: research, Rob 17:30:38 <GregNoel> yes 17:30:56 <garyo-home> ok 17:30:56 <stevenknight> 1761: gary, you okay with 1.x p3? 17:31:01 <stevenknight> and still on your plate 17:31:15 <garyo-home> ok, I'll try to do it. 17:31:19 <garyo-home> It would be cool. 17:31:28 <stevenknight> yes 17:31:27 <GregNoel> done 17:32:02 <GregNoel> 484 (actually 1762) 17:32:09 <garyo-home> 1762: general problem with ancient OSes (IRIX tar is even worse) 17:32:18 <stevenknight> 1762: 1.x p4, Greg, dup to 484 as you see fit 17:32:38 <GregNoel> Tar will be replaced by tarfile as soon as 1.5.2 is obsolete 17:32:43 <GregNoel> I already have it working 17:32:47 <garyo-home> yay 17:33:08 <stevenknight> i thought tarfile didn't show up until like Python 2.4 17:33:22 <GregNoel> I have backported it to 2.2 17:33:38 <stevenknight> GregNoel++ 17:33:59 <stevenknight> and i was wrong anyway, it's 2.3 17:34:01 <stevenknight> cool 17:34:06 <GregNoel> but I couldn't backport it to 1.5.2; too many @staticfoo annotations 17:34:14 <stevenknight> makes sense 17:34:27 <stevenknight> so this definitely 2.x, but high priority 17:34:35 <GregNoel> agreed 17:34:26 <garyo-home> 1763: I think is user error. 17:34:35 <garyo-home> He wants this to work: 17:34:42 <garyo-home> cplusplus = <ins>import</ins>('g++', globals(), locals(), []) 17:34:51 <garyo-home> (sorry I'm getting ahead) 17:34:56 <stevenknight> 162: 2.x p2, or even p1, your call 17:34:59 <stevenknight> 1762 that is 17:35:21 <stevenknight> 1763: oh, did i misread it? 17:35:31 <stevenknight> I thought he was complaining about the Tool() call within the .generate() function 17:35:44 <garyo-home> Seems like he thinks tools should appear in sys.path. 17:35:48 <GregNoel> 1763, agreed 17:36:06 <garyo-home> Give 1763 to me and I'll reply to it, see if I can clear up the confusion. 17:36:15 <stevenknight> 1763: okay 17:36:20 <garyo-home> I have new doc for site_scons which should help anyway. 17:36:38 <GregNoel> done 17:36:57 <stevenknight> 1764: solaris 17:37:12 <stevenknight> and shall we see if maxim can become the solaris guy? 17:37:25 <stevenknight> meant to say: 1764: research 17:37:29 <GregNoel> works for me; will you talk to him? 17:37:36 <stevenknight> ok 17:38:04 <GregNoel> research, stevenknight, hand off to maxim 17:38:27 <stevenknight> done 17:38:51 <stevenknight> 1766: 2.x p3? 17:39:03 <garyo-home> what about 1765 17:39:10 <garyo-home> future/p1? 17:39:25 <stevenknight> sorry, 1765: 17:39:47 <stevenknight> future p1 stevenknight 17:39:48 <GregNoel> 1765, future, p1 17:40:14 * bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.") 17:40:30 <stevenknight> done 17:40:41 <GregNoel> 1766 17:40:45 <stevenknight> 1766: 2.x p3? 17:40:50 <garyo-home> 1766: not really a bug, is it? 17:40:59 <stevenknight> it's weird 17:41:16 <garyo-home> stevenknight: sure is, but is it a bug? 17:41:16 <stevenknight> he gives it one .class file as a target and --debug=tree shows him the dependencies of another 17:41:37 <garyo-home> ok, I can see it being confusing. 17:41:48 <GregNoel> They're circularly dependent, so it's doing the right thing there 17:42:07 <stevenknight> i think it's because it's showing the "primary" dependency of the executor that creates all of the [ABC].class files 17:42:08 <GregNoel> but it should also report on B.class and C.class with the same tree 17:42:20 <garyo-home> GregNoel: ideally yes 17:42:23 <stevenknight> right 17:42:43 <garyo-home> anyway, I can't see putting it in 1.x 17:42:55 <stevenknight> 2.x p3, me? 17:42:56 <GregNoel> Make it dependent on batch builders and review when that is fixed. 17:43:09 <garyo-home> ok w/ me 17:43:49 <garyo-home> 1769: 1.x p2? 17:43:55 <GregNoel> do we want to triage 1086 now (batch builders) as 2.x p3? 17:44:31 <garyo-home> GregNoel: batch has to be in 2.x IMHO 17:44:31 <stevenknight> 1086: i see that as 1.x 17:44:56 <GregNoel> a small conflict ... 17:45:06 <garyo-home> stevenknight: is it possible to get into 1.x? If so, go for it! 17:45:14 <stevenknight> i think so 17:45:23 <garyo-home> Huge performance win 17:45:23 <stevenknight> people have been waiting a long time for it 17:45:29 <stevenknight> and it would be a huge performance win 17:45:33 <garyo-home> :-) 17:45:39 <stevenknight> give it to me for 1.x 17:45:48 <stevenknight> and i'll definitely push it out (again) if it's too hairy 17:45:46 <GregNoel> what priority? 17:45:49 <stevenknight> p2 17:45:53 <GregNoel> done 17:46:21 * GregNoel thinks stevenknight is crazy... 17:46:43 * stevenknight thinks so, too 17:46:13 <stevenknight> 1769: greg and i said future, gary you suggested 1.x 17:46:45 <garyo-home> Greg wants to do it right, I want to hack it so it works. :-) 17:47:03 <garyo-home> ... but then let Greg do it right later. 17:47:10 <GregNoel> hmmm... 17:47:27 <garyo-home> but whatever you guys think on this one. 17:47:36 <stevenknight> i'm agnostic, so i'm content letting you two fight it out... :-) 17:47:49 <garyo-home> in that case Greg it's up to you. 17:47:49 <GregNoel> Maybe Gary and I should talk about this off-line 17:47:58 <garyo-home> So future it is. 17:48:02 <GregNoel> done 17:48:09 <stevenknight> okay 17:48:35 <stevenknight> 1772: this sounds pretty serious, but beyond 1.0 17:48:39 <stevenknight> so 1.x p2 (if not p1) 17:48:52 <garyo-home> agreed 17:48:56 <GregNoel> 1.x p2 17:49:00 <stevenknight> done 17:49:11 <stevenknight> 1831: realized we can probably close this out with reference to Progress() 17:49:21 <garyo-home> yes, I do it now that way. 17:49:22 <stevenknight> which provides a hook for the user to print out the target 17:49:40 <garyo-home> I've even posted my progress func on the list iirc. 17:49:49 <stevenknight> I'll go ahead and close this out real time while we continue 17:49:57 <GregNoel> done 17:50:30 <stevenknight> 1832: moot, David Cournapeau already dup'ed it to 2004 17:50:49 <garyo-home> good. 17:51:17 <GregNoel> 1833 17:52:07 <stevenknight> 1833: assign to me (i have some other --debug=explain work already on my plate) 17:52:12 <stevenknight> 1.x 17:52:22 <GregNoel> ok, what priority? 17:52:22 <stevenknight> p4 because it's back-burner for David? 17:52:38 <GregNoel> done 17:53:18 <garyo-home> 1838 seems familiar? 17:53:31 <stevenknight> 1838: think i fixed that when I did Value nodes recently 17:53:41 <stevenknight> i'm inclined to close it on that basis 17:53:42 <garyo-home> ah yes, now I remember. 17:53:57 <stevenknight> but that's without hard evidence that it's the same problem 17:54:12 <garyo-home> Sohail can reopen if it doesn't work on next release. 17:54:24 <GregNoel> ok 17:55:08 <GregNoel> 1842 17:55:21 <garyo-home> is that Fortran problem or something else? 17:55:23 <stevenknight> okay, I'll close it -- i didn't notice it's Sohail, that makes it all right to close it unilaterally... :-) 17:55:45 <stevenknight> 1842 sounds really weird to me 17:56:09 <garyo-home> Must be Fortran; I say David should look at it. 17:56:22 <garyo-home> 1.x p3 for him 17:56:30 <GregNoel> done 17:56:34 <stevenknight> done 17:56:59 <stevenknight> 1844: 1.x p2, we should do right by 64-bit systems 17:57:08 <stevenknight> i'll be glad to take it 17:57:12 <garyo-home> ok w/ me 17:57:35 <GregNoel> ok, make 20xx a dup? 17:58:04 <garyo-home> ok 17:58:37 <stevenknight> done 17:58:41 <GregNoel> 1862 17:58:42 <garyo-home> 1862: 1.x p3, consensus? 17:58:46 <stevenknight> yes 17:58:49 <GregNoel> done 17:59:06 <garyo-home> 1869: 2.x p3? 17:59:07 <stevenknight> 1869: i said 1.x but could easily go 2.x 17:59:10 <stevenknight> done 17:59:11 <stevenknight> 2.x p3 17:59:27 <GregNoel> ok 17:59:38 <stevenknight> 1771: same, i put down 1.x but don't feel strongly about it 18:00:15 <garyo-home> I'm not a Java guy so I'll stay out of 1771, and now I'm about to turn into a pumpkin. I'll leave my window open so I can review the rest of the goodies :-) See you guys later... 17:59:40 <Azverkan> brandon here, fyi re 1844 the entire windows registry is screwy in 64 bit python, not just the visual studio stuff 18:00:26 <Azverkan> it should probably fixed in the upstream registry package somehow 18:00:39 <garyo-home> Azverkan: that is a good idea. 18:00:43 <stevenknight> hi brandon 18:01:00 <Azverkan> at work so I'm just watching 18:01:01 <stevenknight> agree re: some more comprehensive fix in how we deal with the registry 18:01:27 <stevenknight> wrap up all of these in a function that will look in both 32-bit and 64-bit locations 18:01:36 <stevenknight> without having to sprinkle that logic all over the rest of the modules 18:01:36 <GregNoel> (1771 isn't a registry problem, do you mean 1869?) 18:01:50 <Azverkan> 1844 18:03:31 <GregNoel> ah, way back there... 18:04:36 <stevenknight> okay, back to 1771: 18:04:51 <stevenknight> 2.x p2? 18:05:40 <GregNoel> I'm torn 18:06:32 <GregNoel> It does seem specialized, so 2.x p2 is reasonable. 18:06:50 <stevenknight> okay, let's go with that 18:06:54 <GregNoel> ok 18:07:07 <GregNoel> Next spreadsheet? 18:07:07 <stevenknight> on to 2007q3? 18:08:01 <stevenknight> 1687: INVALID or else a doc issue w.r.t. SideEffect() files not getting cleaned 18:08:16 <stevenknight> i didn't look to see what (if anything) we say about that... 18:08:49 <GregNoel> However, the TeX builders now are using SideEffect to specify optional files; that was in a REVIEW not too long aga 18:08:53 <GregNoel> ago 18:09:08 <stevenknight> um, grep SideEffect Tools/tex*.py turns up nothing 18:09:16 <stevenknight> the TeX tools are using emitters, not SideEffect 18:09:29 <GregNoel> Well, it's what Rob said he was doing... 18:09:53 <stevenknight> oh, maybe that's in a pending patch -- let me do another quick search 18:10:32 <stevenknight> hmm, still not finding anything like that 18:10:35 * GregNoel is doing a search of his own... 18:10:56 <stevenknight> was he saying SideEffect as in the function, or "side effect" as in colloquial expression for "additional files created by TeX" 18:12:50 <GregNoel> Hmmm... Not sure. I read it as "SideEffect" but he could have just been imprecise. 18:13:46 <GregNoel> There's no internal API for side effects; the only entry is SideEffect(), so your search is sufficient 18:14:20 <stevenknight> well, even if TeX starts using it (i could see that for things like logs) i think the right way to handle it would be to also specify Clean() on the SideEffect() files 18:14:21 <GregNoel> I guess that makes it a doc issue. 18:14:32 <stevenknight> okay, 1.0 p3 doc 18:14:53 <GregNoel> ok, I'll write it up that way. 18:15:08 <stevenknight> done 18:15:21 <stevenknight> 1689: 1.x p2, who? 18:16:31 <GregNoel> not me. I'm curious about it, but I think I'm too UNIX-centric 18:16:58 <stevenknight> hmm, i think Gary might be off with the kids, and we're only on our second issue in this spreadsheet 18:17:08 <stevenknight> shall we call it a night? 18:17:16 <GregNoel> I'm willing 18:17:38 <stevenknight> okay, sounds good 18:17:52 <GregNoel> With three sets of relatives in town these past few days, I didn't get much farther than we are now 18:18:05 <stevenknight> not bad, though, we made pretty good progress 18:18:19 <stevenknight> any conflict for you w/next Monday same time (17h00)? 18:18:39 <GregNoel> No, I don't think so; let me check 18:19:22 <GregNoel> Monday the 2nd is good for me 18:19:43 <stevenknight> okay, that'll be the stake in the ground 18:19:58 <GregNoel> OK, I'll publish it 18:20:12 <stevenknight> do you have cycles to update the bugs or shall I handle that translation? 18:20:26 <GregNoel> I'll get some spreadsheets for the next couple of times as well 18:20:38 <GregNoel> No, I can handle it as long as my network is alive 18:20:45 <stevenknight> still flaky? 18:21:07 <GregNoel> Much better, but bandwidth is down 18:21:34 <GregNoel> There were probably some burned wires that haven't been replaced yet 18:21:38 <stevenknight> yow 18:22:01 <stevenknight> all right, i'm off to get back to other things 18:22:11 <stevenknight> many thanks... 18:22:11 <GregNoel> ok, cul 18:22:27 * GregNoel has been marked as being away 18:22:34 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") 18:54:11 * garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla [Firefox]") 21:28:01 * Azverkan has quit ("[BX] Time to make the donuts")