1. SCons
  2. Core
  3. SCons

Wiki

Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2008-11-19

17:24:12  *      garyo-home (n=[chatzill@209.6.158.38](mailto:chatzill@209.6.158.38)) has joined #scons 
17:24:42  <garyo-home>   Hi Greg. 
17:27:55  *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-93de785fa2957b48) has joined #scons 
17:28:18  <garyo-home>   Hi, Steven. 
17:28:24  <stevenknight> hey garyo 
17:28:38  *      Greg_Noel just got here 
17:28:46  <Greg_Noel>    Hi, all... 
17:28:51  <stevenknight> hi greg 
17:29:20  <Greg_Noel>    Give me a chance to set up... 
17:29:26  <garyo-home>   Hi Greg. 
17:34:58  <Greg_Noel>    I'm ready; shall we proceed? 
17:35:32  <garyo-home>   yes, let's start. 
17:35:39  <stevenknight> all right then... 
17:35:53  <garyo-home>   1895 consensus 
17:36:02  <garyo-home>   2127 consensus 
17:36:06  <Greg_Noel>    1895 and 2127 look like consensus 
17:36:37  <garyo-home>   2248: I say maybe invalid due to vs_revamp. 
17:36:46  <Greg_Noel>    I'll go with research, David 
17:36:50  <stevenknight> yes, vs_revamp should take care of it 
17:37:00  <stevenknight> probably nicer to the user to close as FIXED by vs_revamp, though 
17:37:09  <garyo-home>   q: when should we integrate vs_revamp?  (Steven: yes, good idea) 
17:37:51  <stevenknight> how about right after 1.2? 
17:37:56  <Greg_Noel>    Can't close it until there's a fix in place; bad practice 
17:37:57  <stevenknight> (which we should discuss) 
17:38:12  <stevenknight> greg:  right, sorry I meant after vs_revamp is integrated 
17:38:24  <garyo-home>   steven: sounds good. 
17:38:41  <stevenknight> okay, so mark this 1.3 p3 keyword 'vs_revamp' ? 
17:38:48  <garyo-home>   ok\ 
17:38:50  <Greg_Noel>    ok, 1.3, p?, who? 
17:39:13  <Greg_Noel>    p3 is ok 
17:39:16  <garyo-home>   I'll do it, it's only closing the bug when vs_revamp is in. 
17:39:20  <Greg_Noel>    done 
17:39:57  <garyo-home>   2250? 
17:40:25  <stevenknight> probably end up with me 
17:40:32  <Greg_Noel>    Wide range of opinion... 
17:40:41  <stevenknight> how about 1.3 p3?  (or p4?) 
17:41:05  <garyo-home>   I'd prefer 2.x, there's too much going on already. 
17:41:17  <stevenknight> i can go with 2.x 
17:41:30  <Greg_Noel>    I still think that a revamp of Configure, which would take over the functionality of not only Configure, but also Option/Variable and other stuff (including getting options from the shell environment), is the right strategy, but as a short term hack, I can agree with a convenience function 
17:43:09  <garyo-home>   Good. 
17:43:37  <Greg_Noel>    ok, 2.x, p?, steven? 
17:43:43  <garyo-home>   2.x p3 steven 
17:44:13  <Greg_Noel>    I could also go with p4, not as important as other things. 
17:44:24  <garyo-home>   either way's ok w/ me 
17:44:36  <Greg_Noel>    Steven?  You're the deciding vote. 
17:44:39  <garyo-home>   p4 maybe better 
17:44:57  <stevenknight> sorry, distracted -- i just broke the chrome build... :-/ 
17:45:11  <Greg_Noel>    Naughty, naughty... 
17:45:18  <garyo-home>   can we help? :-) 
17:45:14  <stevenknight> 2.x p3 me 
17:45:20  <Greg_Noel>    done 
17:45:24  <garyo-home>   2251: threading issues are hard 
17:45:39  <garyo-home>   ... to test, at least 
17:45:50  <stevenknight> yeah, and I'm far from a threading guru 
17:46:10  <stevenknight> but I'm starting to rope more people here into issues like this... 
17:46:44  <Greg_Noel>    Well, I've been one in the past, but it's nasty work. 
17:46:48  <garyo-home>   in this case though it seems likely to be something like that, so I'd vote for something that "ought to fix it" even w/o a hard testcase; the testcase should just exercise it a bit. 
17:47:03  <Greg_Noel>    garyo-home, agree 
17:47:05  <stevenknight> garyo-home:  agreed, i'll take that approach 
17:47:29  <garyo-home>   ok, 1.x p3 steven? 
17:47:35  <stevenknight> done 
17:47:48  <stevenknight> oh, wait, we were saying 2.x, yes? 
17:47:50  <Greg_Noel>    We don't have a model for making (and keeping) SCons thread-safe and we should.  Right now, it's completely ad-hoc and we've been pretty lucky that so few issues have surfaced.  How should we go about developing a model, including possible thread locks? 
17:48:20  <garyo-home>   Greg: without redesigning it for safety?  Nearly impossible. 
17:48:24  <stevenknight> Greg_Noel, good point, excellent question, I have no idea 
17:49:03  <garyo-home>   Greg: but thinking about it and discussing it and a few well-placed comments won't hurt :-) 
17:49:08  <Greg_Noel>    Yeah, but an idea about where to go from here is needed; for example, should this issue have been fixed with a lock rather than a delayed-action flag?  No model, so we're working in the dark. 
17:49:44  <garyo-home>   I agree. 
17:50:01  <stevenknight> okay, how about a TASK in the tracker to come up with a model? 
17:50:14  <stevenknight> or define it, really 
17:50:15  <garyo-home>   But we do have a *basic* model about when threads are created etc. 
17:50:18  <stevenknight> at least we track the issue 
17:50:24  <Greg_Noel>    I'll go for that, but you can't put multiple people on a task. 
17:50:25  <garyo-home>   steven: can't hurt. 
17:50:41  <garyo-home>   wiki page in the design doc section? 
17:50:48  <Greg_Noel>    good idea 
17:50:48  <stevenknight> mark it something like 2.0, and either Greg (if you want to drive it) or me (if we want it to lie fallow for a good long while... :-)) 
17:50:58  <stevenknight> wiki page ++ 
17:51:04  <Greg_Noel>    {;-} I'll drive it, then 
17:51:15  <garyo-home>   great! 
17:51:19  <stevenknight> cool, thanks 
17:51:55  <Greg_Noel>    OK, what did we decide for 2151? 
17:52:16  <stevenknight> 2.x p3 stevenknight 
17:52:22  <Greg_Noel>    done 
17:52:26  <garyo-home>   good 
17:52:28  <stevenknight> and a new TASK for the larger issue of a coherent thread model 
17:52:31  <Greg_Noel>    yes 
17:52:53  <Greg_Noel>    "coherent" ==> good word 
17:52:46  <garyo-home>   2252: trivial fix 
17:52:53  <stevenknight> 2252:  consensus 
17:52:55  <stevenknight> 2253:  moot 
17:53:09  <stevenknight> 2254:  consensus 
17:53:44  <garyo-home>   2255: Greg, can you go w/ Steven's idea? 
17:53:51  <stevenknight> 2255:  consensus except for Greg -- you okay with the proposal on the table? 
17:54:10  *      Greg_Noel still catching up; hadn't read all the new comments before 
17:55:27  <Greg_Noel>    Yes, add compat layer; only the one is needed post 2.0, but the other is, ah, problematic. 
17:55:58  <garyo-home>   how? 
17:56:34  <Greg_Noel>    no Python support to get the needed information 
17:57:03  <garyo-home>   Could it be made to be a noop on old pythons or something? 
17:57:42  <stevenknight> if it's a real problem, i'll do something like that rather than spend huge amounts of time on it 
17:57:53  <stevenknight> hopefully 1.5.2 support only lives for another couple months anyway 
17:57:58  <garyo-home>   right. 
17:58:31  <Greg_Noel>    Are you suggesting that we add a new get_text_contents?  I'm not sure I like that solution, unless it becomes a noop on systems that don't need it (memory impact) 
17:58:59  <stevenknight> ???  i don't think it should be, IIRC how it was implemented 
17:59:12  <stevenknight> it's not going to hang on to the decoded text 
17:59:33  <Greg_Noel>    I'm not so sure... 
18:00:12  <Greg_Noel>    how about research rather than committing to a fixed release? 
18:00:31  <Greg_Noel>    and bring it back to triage when there's more information? 
18:00:53  <garyo-home>   Not sure what that more information would be.  Whether it would be a memory hog? 
18:00:57  <stevenknight> well, i can live that, i guess 
18:01:08  <stevenknight> if you specify what information you're looking for, i'll bring it back 
18:01:17  <garyo-home>   I think there's no system on which it's not needed. 
18:01:58  <Greg_Noel>    Where/how get_text_contents would be used, whether text would be saved/cached, that sort of thing.  I18n text is expensive. 
18:02:50  <garyo-home>   It would be used in scanners.  Any utf-8 source code could have this problem. 
18:03:02  <stevenknight> just checked the code, the text is not saved/cached 
18:03:14  <stevenknight> it's decoded by the scanners as needed 
18:03:16  <garyo-home>   But I get the point that it takes more memory. 
18:03:43  <Greg_Noel>    OK, maybe I'm being stubborn.  "Memory is infinite and free", right? 
18:03:49  <garyo-home>   If you had a monster utf-8 resource file (e.g.) it could take 2x the storage to get its text contents.  I don't think that's a problem. 
18:03:56  <Greg_Noel>    4x. 
18:04:10  <garyo-home>   true, up to 4x depending. 
18:04:21  <stevenknight> sure, but only while scanning 
18:04:24  <garyo-home>   (or is python always 4x internally?) 
18:04:29  <stevenknight> and the alternative is SCons doesn't work at all for you 
18:04:33  <garyo-home>   yes, only during the scan, then it's gone. 
18:04:52  <garyo-home>   Steven, I basically agree, this is needed.  Just want to tease out all the implications. 
18:04:55  <Greg_Noel>    (Python always uses 4x on all platforms now) 
18:05:00  <stevenknight> okay 
18:05:41  <Greg_Noel>    I'll go with what you two decide. 
18:05:59  <garyo-home>   Doesn't seem like memory usage would be a huge problem.  I vote for implementing it and testing it on a couple of large builds; we have mem test infrastructure now. 
18:06:11  <Greg_Noel>    OK, that works, 
18:07:01  <garyo-home>   2255: 1.x p2 steven then? 
18:07:05  <stevenknight> done 
18:07:08  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:07:19  <stevenknight> 2256 & 2257:  consensus David, 1.3 p3 ? 
18:07:25  <garyo-home>   yup 
18:07:46  <garyo-home>   2258: invalid 
18:07:57  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:08:13  <garyo-home>   2259 consensus (I'd like this too) 
18:08:48  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:09:02  <stevenknight> 2260 consensus invalid 
18:09:11  <garyo-home>   2260: I feel like it's too "interesting" to just mark it invalid somehow. 
18:09:28  <stevenknight> future? 
18:09:28  <garyo-home>   future? 
18:09:31  <garyo-home>   :-) 
18:09:40  <Greg_Noel>    What does Clean() do on a directory?  We may already have a fix. 
18:09:58  <garyo-home>   Good question. 
18:10:03  <garyo-home>   research, then? 
18:10:14  <Greg_Noel>    ok, research, who? 
18:10:37  <garyo-home>   I'd love to but I am overcommitted. 
18:11:28  <Greg_Noel>    I can check on Clean(), but I have personal stuff coming up, so my time will be limited over the next couple of months 
18:12:36  <Greg_Noel>    Did we lose Steven again? 
18:12:49  <garyo-home>   maybe he just doesn't want it either :-~ 
18:13:03  <Greg_Noel>    Or he could have broken another build... 
18:13:12  <garyo-home>   maybe. 
18:13:45  <stevenknight> yep, broke it again 
18:13:46  <Greg_Noel>    Let's make it research, me, and I'll toss it back if Clean() won't work. 
18:13:53  <garyo-home>   ok. 
18:14:04  <garyo-home>   and then we'll mark it future. 
18:14:08  <stevenknight> i'm pretty sure Clean() does it 
18:14:09  <garyo-home>   thanks! 
18:14:16  <stevenknight> agreed, thanks for taking it 
18:14:38  <garyo-home>   So, discuss 1.2 plans? 
18:14:47  <stevenknight> done with that spreadsheet; spend a little time on editlist2005q2? 
18:14:48  <Greg_Noel>    That concludes this spreadsheet, should we go on?  Or do you need to pay attention to your build, Steven? 
18:14:51  <stevenknight> oh, 1.2 better 
18:15:06  <stevenknight> i have to wait for my second fix to build anyway... 
18:16:09  <garyo-home>   btw, Greg, have you noticed some decay in the [BugParty](BugParty) page? 
18:16:18  <stevenknight> 1.2 is overdue, so my inclination is to get a candidate out there 
18:16:18  <Greg_Noel>    1.2 is due out 24 Nov 
18:16:30  <stevenknight> right, sorry, candidate at least is overdue 
18:16:35  <stevenknight> i only sent out the one checkpoint so far 
18:16:36  <Greg_Noel>    what decay? 
18:16:57  <garyo-home>   Check it out.  Words with missing parts, damaged lists... 
18:18:18  <garyo-home>   steven: 1.2 candidate any time is fine w/ me.  I only wish I had more time to get my fixes in. 
18:18:24  <stevenknight> me too 
18:18:28  <Greg_Noel>    also 
18:18:48  <stevenknight> the big thing I'd *like* to get in is a performance improvement I've been working on for folks here 
18:19:05  <stevenknight> it changes the LIBPATH / CPPPATH search from linear (for each .h file for each .o file) 
18:19:13  <stevenknight> to O(1) by collapsing the directories into a lookup dictionary 
18:19:36  <garyo-home>   That sounds good. 
18:19:39  <stevenknight> one of our libraries (from an upstream project) has literally ~80 directories in CPPPATH 
18:19:49  <stevenknight> and we use Repository() to multiply that x3 
18:20:00  <stevenknight> it cut the SCons overhead literally in half 
18:20:09  <garyo-home>   amazing. 
18:20:24  <garyo-home>   Were you also looking at a quoting issue? 
18:20:33  <stevenknight> yes 
18:20:42  <stevenknight> actually, string substitution in general 
18:20:54  <stevenknight> but it dovetails with the quoting for command execution 
18:20:57  <garyo-home>   Ah, right. 
18:21:32  <Greg_Noel>    (Gary, I see it, it must be recent, I'll check into it.) 
18:22:04  <garyo-home>   So is 1.2 still possible on 11/24? 
18:22:17  <stevenknight> in its more-or-less current state, yes 
18:22:23  <Greg_Noel>    How big is the change?  Should it be kept for a checkpoint post-1.2? 
18:22:31  <stevenknight> probably post 1.2 
18:22:46  <stevenknight> it moves a bunch of scanning logic from the Node class into the Scanner proper 
18:23:00  <stevenknight> so it's potentially impactive and needs some baking time 
18:23:15  <stevenknight> actually, Gary, you could try giving it a sanity check if you want 
18:23:24  <stevenknight> its in branches/sgk_[PathList](PathList) 
18:23:24  <garyo-home>   In that case, and given vs_revamp, the sooner we get 1.2 out the sooner both those changes can move into being testable 
18:23:35  <Greg_Noel>    concur 
18:23:33  <garyo-home>   steven: I'll try it out this week. 
18:23:40  <stevenknight> should be able to point to bootstrap.py 
18:23:45  <stevenknight> okay, that makes sense 
18:23:57  <stevenknight> i'll go ahead and work on the candidate checkpoint after we're done 
18:24:04  <stevenknight> i should have some downtime in between breaking builds... 
18:24:14  <garyo-home>   :-/ 
18:24:14  <Greg_Noel>    {;-} 
18:24:12  <stevenknight> and then ship 1.2 next week 
18:24:22  <garyo-home>   sounds good. 
18:24:22  <Greg_Noel>    works for me 
18:25:23  <stevenknight> okay, then 
18:25:28  <Greg_Noel>    (Uh, wow, maybe it's Moin; I've got some other pages with lists that are broken...) 
18:25:52  <garyo-home>   I think that page has had minor damage for quite a while, but it just got a lot worse. 
18:25:46  <stevenknight> any cycles to look at a few 2005q2 bugs, or do we need to wind down? 
18:26:00  <garyo-home>   I can do a few, Steven. 
18:26:07  <Greg_Noel>    I've got time 
18:27:05  <stevenknight> okay, 1136: 
18:27:09  <stevenknight> consensus 1.x p3 stevenknight 
18:27:19  <garyo-home>   ok 
18:27:27  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:27:43  <garyo-home>   1140: could Ignore() help here? 
18:28:11  <Greg_Noel>    Probably not; you want the dependency 
18:28:29  <stevenknight> but you can't have that dependency without making a cycle 
18:28:37  <stevenknight> it needs to be broken one way or another... 
18:28:41  <Greg_Noel>    I've had to create fake dependencies to deal with it in the past 
18:28:56  <Greg_Noel>    That works, but it's a hassle 
18:29:09  <garyo-home>   You basically want the file to depend on all the other files in the dir except itself, right? 
18:29:23  <Greg_Noel>    yes, recursively 
18:29:26  <stevenknight> off the top of my head, that sounds right 
18:29:29  <garyo-home>   eek! 
18:29:57  <garyo-home>   ok, I don't know why this is useful but still sounds like you could make the file depend on the dir and then use Ignore (?) 
18:30:17  <garyo-home>   But I haven't thought about it a lot so feel free to Ignore me :-) 
18:30:47  <Greg_Noel>    garyo-home, bad pun!  I like it! 
18:30:18  <Greg_Noel>    The thing with using Glob() for dependencies that Ludwig is working on would solve it, but I don't know if he can do it. 
18:31:24  <stevenknight> so someone research this for a good solution? 
18:31:37  <Greg_Noel>    maybe Ludwig? 
18:31:51  <stevenknight> if we go with Ignore(), it should at least be documented as the recommended pattern 
18:32:22  <Greg_Noel>    Ignore is applied after dependencies; there's still a loop. 
18:33:57  <Greg_Noel>    (Silence while we contemplate.) 
18:34:31  <stevenknight> well, it sounds like a research for someone 
18:34:39  <stevenknight> to either find the right code fix or the right doc fix 
18:35:29  <Greg_Noel>    Let's see if Ludwig is willing. 
18:36:08  <stevenknight> okay, sounds good to me 
18:36:26  <stevenknight> 1140:  resesarch, Ludwig 
18:36:27  <Greg_Noel>    Gary, you OK with that? 
18:36:37  <garyo-home>   yes 
18:36:40  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:36:48  <stevenknight> 1142:  FIXED, ludwig 
18:36:52  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:37:30  <stevenknight> 1143:  2.x p4 steveknight? 
18:37:44  <Greg_Noel>    1143, don't use [FilterOut](FilterOut); I've got an enhancement with that name on it 
18:37:47  <garyo-home>   sure! 
18:37:58  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:37:59  <stevenknight> okay, i prefer env.Remove() myself anyway 
18:38:03  <garyo-home>   me too 
18:38:07  <stevenknight> parallel with list.append => env.Append(), etc. 
18:38:51  <stevenknight> 1152:  gary, you filed it, so your 2.x p3 trumps 
18:39:05  <garyo-home>   1152: sure, count me in. 
18:39:10  <Greg_Noel>    works for me 
18:39:18  <stevenknight> 1152:  2.x, p3, garyo 
18:39:18  <stevenknight> done 
18:39:36  <stevenknight> 1161:  2.x p2 gregnoel ? 
18:40:13  <Greg_Noel>    OK, although I'm going to have to digest Steven's comment... 
18:40:45  <stevenknight> nah, just spit it back up -- i'm blathering on like i usually do 
18:40:44  <garyo-home>   Greg: by proxy wrappers you're thinking about -Bstatic/-Bdynamic, right?  In which case I agree, this is the same. 
18:41:06  <stevenknight> i don't think my comment adds any real value 
18:41:27  <Greg_Noel>    yes, Bstatic() and Bdynamic() proxy wrappers 
18:42:27  <garyo-home>   I like tags better than proxy wrappers but if you're implementing it, you choose. 
18:42:55  <Greg_Noel>    This case needs to return a list, so it needs some sort of wrapper 
18:43:24  <Greg_Noel>    I'll come up with a proposal, then re-triage it 
18:43:27  <garyo-home>   I see your point, otherwise something else has to collect the tagged libs, and that gets hairy 
18:43:49  <garyo-home>   OK, greg re-triage w/ proposal 
18:44:50  <stevenknight> done 
18:45:00  <Greg_Noel>    1164, looks like the consensus is future 
18:45:11  <stevenknight> works for me 
18:45:14  <stevenknight> 1164:  future, p4? 
18:45:18  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:45:20  <garyo-home>   yes 
18:45:31  <stevenknight> 1166:  shall we just put it in to get it off the plate? 
18:45:48  <stevenknight> we've been kind of doing that for other tools with small user bases 
18:45:56  <Greg_Noel>    I don't use it, so that's fine with me 
18:45:58  <garyo-home>   I think there's another bcc ticket lying around, hang on 
18:46:45  <garyo-home>   yes, there are a few actually. 
18:46:59  <Greg_Noel>    The -e$TARGET should be first, if the command accepts that, to be consistent with other builders. 
18:47:32  <garyo-home>   I did 2163 already, so why don't I do 1166 (blind) 
18:47:41  <stevenknight> gregnoel:  agreed 
18:47:47  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:47:53  <stevenknight> garyo:  thanks:  2163:  anytime garyo 
18:48:02  <Greg_Noel>    yes, anytime 
18:48:10  <stevenknight> er, 1166:  anytime garyo 
18:48:20  <garyo-home>   sure.  Also I have 2164 but never got any response from the OP. 
18:48:24  <garyo-home>   Maybe he's moved on. 
18:48:41  <stevenknight> seems likely 
18:48:48  <stevenknight> 1170:  consensus research, david 
18:49:18  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:49:38  <garyo-home>   yes 
18:50:03  <Greg_Noel>    1175, another blind change for Gary? 
18:50:12  <garyo-home>   oh joy 
18:50:15  <garyo-home>   sure, why not. 
18:50:22  <garyo-home>   i'm brave 
18:50:31  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:51:10  <garyo-home>   1176: agree w/ Greg 
18:51:32  <stevenknight> 1176:  agree 
18:51:40  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:52:00  <stevenknight> 3:  greg filed it, has it been fixed? 
18:52:29  <Greg_Noel>    damifino, I used a workaround 
18:52:06  <stevenknight> i think you're right about gary working on it since then 
18:52:40  <garyo-home>   I did clean it up a lot.  I seem to remember I was skeptical about changing the existing behavior though.  Anyway I'll look at it again. 
18:52:57  <Greg_Noel>    anytime, garyo? 
18:53:15  <Greg_Noel>    or is research better? 
18:53:20  <garyo-home>   Would you all be in favor of changing the behavior?  Would cause rebuilds... 
18:53:36  *      Greg_Noel has his hand up 
18:53:41  <garyo-home>   call it research.  Need to see if this case works or not. 
18:54:10  <garyo-home>   I'd rather it be changed too. 
18:54:12  <Greg_Noel>    Rebuilds would be very rare... 
18:54:43  <Greg_Noel>    You OK with that, Steven?  Or did the build break again? 
18:55:00  <garyo-home>   And one more q: if you append [1, 2, 1], should it append 1,2 or 2,1? 
18:55:26  <Greg_Noel>    You added the option, follow the option. 
18:55:44  <garyo-home>   That makes sense 
18:55:51  <stevenknight> build break 
18:56:13  <garyo-home>   It's about time for me to go anyway. 
18:56:34  <stevenknight> i'm okay with changing behavior if the new is better, and we have a reasonable path 
18:56:44  <garyo-home>   ok 
18:56:48  <stevenknight> so 3:  research, garyo 
18:56:55  <Greg_Noel>    done 
18:57:09  <stevenknight> last parting shot:  1180:  1.x, p3, me 
18:57:16  <stevenknight> it's a definite problem, we leak tmp*.lnk files 
18:57:24  <Greg_Noel>    I should go soon as well... 
18:57:32  <Greg_Noel>    1180, done 
18:57:37  <garyo-home>   ok, thanks all! 
18:57:38  <stevenknight> sometimes SCons slows down because of huge numbers of leaked files in /tmp or %TMPDIR% 
18:57:43  <stevenknight> all right, good progress 
18:57:46  <stevenknight> many thanks, guys 
18:57:53  <Greg_Noel>    er, 1182, David? 
18:58:05  <stevenknight> 1182 david, yes 
18:58:11  <garyo-home>   ok 
18:58:12  <stevenknight> they're like potato chips! 
18:58:16  <garyo-home>   2 weeks from now, right? 
18:58:21  <stevenknight> yes, two weeks 
18:58:26  <Greg_Noel>    The rest next time, yes, two weeks, after Thanksgiving. 
18:58:27  <stevenknight> have a good turkey day 
18:58:39  <garyo-home>   ok, I'll see you then.  Happy Thanksgiving! 
18:58:40  <Greg_Noel>    same to you guys 
18:58:45  <Greg_Noel>    cul 
18:58:49  <garyo-home>   bye 
18:58:50  <stevenknight> l8r 
18:58:52  *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-93de785fa2957b48) has left #scons ("Leaving") 
18:58:56  *      Greg_Noel goes for dinner 
18:59:00  *      garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.4/2008102920]") 

Updated