1. SCons
  2. Core
  3. SCons

Wiki

Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2008-05-27

13:05:55  *      Azverkan (n=[fakeuser@209.172.105.155](mailto:fakeuser@209.172.105.155)) has joined #scons 
16:48:00  *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-46e723d28b1b3479) has joined #scons 
16:55:25  <stevenknight> [GregNoel](GregNoel):  are you here yet? 
16:55:53  *      garyo-home (n=[chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) 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](GregNoel)>     Hello, am I late? 
17:00:01  <garyo-home>   nope, just in time. 
17:00:09  <stevenknight> hi Greg 
17:00:26  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     No, we'll see them again tomorrow. 
17:02:13  <stevenknight> BTW, on the [ReadWrite](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](GregNoel)>     Yeah, the spreadsheet isn't ready yet. 
17:03:02  <garyo-home>   Unfortunately I only have 45 min tonight :-( 
17:03:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'm ready 
17:03:22  <stevenknight> okay, 2061 
17:03:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Why only 45 min? 
17:03:35  <garyo-home>   kid duty 
17:03:49  *      stevenknight nods knowingly... 
17:04:14  *      [GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     sure 
17:04:29  <stevenknight> sure 
17:04:33  <stevenknight> jinx 
17:04:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     jinx 
17:04:42  <garyo-home>   How much should we put into 1.x vs. deferring to 2.x? 
17:04:59  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     done 
17:10:47  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     done 
17:13:15  <stevenknight> 1741:  1.x p3, stevenknight 
17:13:27  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me 
17:13:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok 
17:14:05  <garyo-home>   1742 is a subprocess issue or something? 
17:14:36  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     No, setting CC is ignored, so TryXXX will succeed. 
17:17:14  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](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 (n=[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has joined #scons 
17:20:38  <stevenknight> on 1183 is fine 
17:20:44  <stevenknight> hey bill 
17:20:48  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     how about me, research, and I'll untangle it. 
17:24:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I can try a test case. 
17:24:55  <stevenknight> if you want, sure, go ahead 
17:25:21  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     We discussed this once before 
17:29:34  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     1755, consensus 
17:30:30  <garyo-home>   ok 
17:30:34  <stevenknight> 1760:  research, Rob 
17:30:38  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     done 
17:32:02  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     Tar will be replaced by tarfile as soon as 1.5.2 is obsolete 
17:32:43  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     I have backported it to 2.2 
17:33:38  <stevenknight> [GregNoel](GregNoel)++ 
17:33:59  <stevenknight> and i was wrong anyway, it's 2.3 
17:34:01  <stevenknight> cool 
17:34:06  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     works for me; will you talk to him? 
17:37:36  <stevenknight> ok 
17:38:04  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     1765, future, p1 
17:40:14  *      bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.") 
17:40:30  <stevenknight> done 
17:40:41  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     but it should also report on B.class and C.class with the same tree 
17:42:20  <garyo-home>   [GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     do we want to triage 1086 now (batch builders) as 2.x p3? 
17:44:31  <garyo-home>   [GregNoel](GregNoel): batch has to be in 2.x IMHO 
17:44:31  <stevenknight> 1086:  i see that as 1.x 
17:44:56  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     what priority? 
17:45:49  <stevenknight> p2 
17:45:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:46:21  *      [GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     Maybe Gary and I should talk about this off-line 
17:47:58  <garyo-home>   So future it is. 
17:48:02  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     ok, what priority? 
17:52:22  <stevenknight> p4 because it's back-burner for David? 
17:52:38  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     ok 
17:55:08  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     ok, make 20xx a dup? 
17:58:04  <garyo-home>   ok 
17:58:37  <stevenknight> done 
17:58:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1862 
17:58:42  <garyo-home>   1862: 1.x p3, consensus? 
17:58:46  <stevenknight> yes 
17:58:49  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     (1771 isn't a registry problem, do you mean 1869?) 
18:01:50  <Azverkan>     1844 
18:03:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ah, way back there... 
18:04:36  <stevenknight> okay, back to 1771: 
18:04:51  <stevenknight> 2.x p2? 
18:05:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm torn 
18:06:32  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     ok 
18:07:07  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     However, the TeX builders now are using [SideEffect](SideEffect) to specify optional files; that was in a REVIEW not too long aga 
18:08:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ago 
18:09:08  <stevenknight> um, grep [SideEffect](SideEffect) Tools/*tex*.py turns up nothing 
18:09:16  <stevenknight> the TeX tools are using emitters, not [SideEffect](SideEffect) 
18:09:29  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel) is doing a search of his own... 
18:10:56  <stevenknight> was he saying [SideEffect](SideEffect) as in the function, or "side effect" as in colloquial expression for "additional files created by TeX" 
18:12:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm...  Not sure.  I read it as "[SideEffect](SideEffect)" but he could have just been imprecise. 
18:13:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     There's no internal API for side effects; the only entry is [SideEffect](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](SideEffect)() files 
18:14:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I guess that makes it a doc issue. 
18:14:32  <stevenknight> okay, 1.0 p3 doc 
18:14:53  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     I'm willing 
18:17:38  <stevenknight> okay, sounds good 
18:17:52  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     No, I don't think so; let me check 
18:19:22  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     I'll get some spreadsheets for the next couple of times as well 
18:20:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, I can handle it as long as my network is alive 
18:20:45  <stevenknight> still flaky? 
18:21:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Much better, but bandwidth is down 
18:21:34  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     ok, cul 
18:22:27  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away 
18:22:34  *      stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") 
18:54:11  *      garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.14/2008040413]") 
21:28:01  *      Azverkan has quit ("[BX] Time to make the donuts") 

Updated