1. SCons
  2. Core
  3. SCons

Wiki

Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2009-12-15

10:41:50  *      sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/session) has joined #scons 
16:46:32  *      garyo (n=[garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has joined #scons 
16:55:30  *      You are no longer marked as being away 
16:55:41  <garyo>        hi, anyone here yet? 
16:55:55  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is still setting up 
16:57:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, that seems to do it.  Network is very sluggish tonight.  Probably overload on my ISP. 
16:58:25  <garyo>        Hi Greg.  Got a few comments in... 
16:58:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, Gary...  Good. 
16:59:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Steven isn't here yet, so don't stop now. 
17:00:23  <sgk_> hello 
17:00:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Whoa, where did you come from? 
17:00:54  <sgk_> using this nick tonight 
17:01:07  <sgk_> actually signed on much earlier today, as a way to bring up colloquy on my laptop 
17:02:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Ah.  So we seem to have a quorum, although Gary is off adding some last-minute comments. 
17:01:54  <garyo>        Hi Steven 
17:02:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And there he is... 
17:02:10  <sgk_> i'll have a longer shuttle break from now on, probably 1715 - 1725 or so 
17:02:19  <sgk_> i'm in a new building and have to hike to the stop 
17:02:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Should we move the time to a different time to avoid that? 
17:03:08  <garyo>        My time is limited so let's start in. (Greg: later is better for me usually) 
17:03:08  <sgk_> if you guys want to, fine, but i'm okay with it either way 
17:03:26  <sgk_> 2470:  any word from OP? 
17:03:37  <garyo>        Yes, he said there's no user-visible error from it. 
17:03:43  <garyo>        So we should just make it low pri. 
17:03:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     concur 
17:03:51  <sgk_> future p4? 
17:03:56  <sgk_> 3.x p4? 
17:04:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     the latter 
17:04:02  <garyo>        I still think it's a bug though.  I like 3.x p4. 
17:04:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:04:15  <sgk_> 2470:  3.x p4 done 
17:04:32  <garyo>        2474: someone needs to research it I guess. 
17:04:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     From the description, I'm convinced it's the directory thing, so I guess I have to look at it. 
17:05:12  <garyo>        Maybe start by asking OP if it still happens w/ COmmand? 
17:05:12  <sgk_> okay, research gregnoel? 
17:05:18  <garyo>        +1 
17:05:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yeah, sigh 
17:05:28  <garyo>        thanks 
17:05:28  <sgk_> thnx 
17:05:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2482, I think I have a fix 
17:05:53  <garyo>        excellent! 
17:05:57  <sgk_> [GregNoel](GregNoel)++ 
17:06:28  <sgk_> brb 
17:06:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I asked the OP to test it, but no word back yet.  I can try to work on it this week, but time is being compressed. 
17:07:44  <garyo>        you can say that again. 
17:08:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     make it research [GregNoel](GregNoel) and I'll try to get to it before 1.3 (the test will be nasty) 
17:08:09  <sgk_> back 
17:08:38  <garyo>        sounds like 2482 is in progress anyway so no action needed from us 
17:08:01  <garyo>        2490: Greg, did you see if update has tests?  I agree w/ your priorities in either case.  (I'd say p3, C# is pretty popular) 
17:08:50  <sgk_> haven't looked at 2490 yet, i'll do so 
17:09:17  <garyo>        ok, steven research, then 2.1/2.x p3 (depending on whether it has tests)? 
17:09:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, I wrote the OP and he added a note with what the changes were 
17:09:42  <sgk_> need to put my name on it -- doing so right now 
17:09:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     no tests, but he says he can write some when his vacation starts 
17:09:55  <garyo>        ah, he says he'll put some tests together.  Great! 
17:10:22  <sgk_> wait, looks like my name might have been put on 2491 by mistake? 
17:10:46  <sgk_> no, 2491 is correct, i just need to add 2490 
17:10:47  <sgk_> don't mind me 
17:11:19  <garyo>        yup, 2491's yours too 
17:11:55  <garyo>        so are we done w/ 2490? 
17:11:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     did you set the milestone and priority on 2490? 
17:12:13  <sgk_> yes, research SK p3 
17:12:16  <sgk_> just setting now 
17:12:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     cool, tks, so 2497 
17:13:19  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I don't see what he's expecting.  He's trying to bind to a static library as if it were dynamic.  Doesn't work. 
17:13:33  <garyo>        I think there's a Qt way of building a program from a lib, but this seems low priority to fix to me.  Workaround is to add a dummy source. 
17:13:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I agree. 
17:13:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     invalid or wontfix? 
17:14:12  <sgk_> 3.x p4? 
17:14:22  <garyo>        wontfix; user could consider it a bug but we won't fix it. 
17:14:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:14:37  <sgk_> okay 
17:14:55  <garyo>        2498 
17:15:04  <sgk_> research SK p... 3? 
17:15:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yeah 
17:15:38  <garyo>        ok 
17:15:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:16:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2500 fixed? 
17:16:13  <sgk_> haven't looked, sorry 
17:16:17  <sgk_> putting my name on this, too 
17:16:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     milestone and priority? 
17:16:28  <sgk_> fortunately, i'm almost done with the timing stuff 
17:16:38  <sgk_> so i'll prioritize my time after that to clear these 
17:16:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     so 1.3 p? 
17:17:07  <sgk_> research p2, then 2.1 p2 if it's not already fixed? 
17:17:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works 
17:17:20  <garyo>        ok 
17:17:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2502 who? 
17:17:49  <garyo>        2502: I can take that one 
17:17:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:18:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2503 
17:18:29  <garyo>        2503: batch-compilation thing 
17:19:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     This is usually reordered implicit dependencies 
17:19:02  <garyo>        Steven: is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad? 
17:19:09  <sgk_> my bus is leaving the stop two before mine, gotta go, back in ~5-10 
17:19:13  *      sgk_ has quit () 
17:20:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     for the signature?  yeah, it could be bad if the list of sources changes. 
17:19:42  <garyo>        I wish Bill were here, I was hoping he'd have time to put out the checkpoint. 
17:20:05  <garyo>        I absolutely don't have time to do it :-( 
17:20:42  <garyo>        With batch compilation (cl.exe a.c b.c c.c ...) the list changes a lot. 
17:21:04  <garyo>        and it shouldn't recompile everything if only one source changes; it's because the cmd line is part of the sig. 
17:21:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Er, wait...  Yeah, I was thinking of how TNG handles it.  I don't know if it would be a problem currently. 
17:22:19  <garyo>        I think in this case you explicitly DON'T want the list of sources to be part of the sig of each object. 
17:23:19  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Probably not, but I should make a note for TNG that this will take some extra specification. 
17:22:45  <garyo>        (he fixes that, but then notes that it still pulls all of them from cache, but that's much lower priority imho) 
17:23:53  <garyo>        I don't use the batch stuff; should probably try it. 
17:24:00  <garyo>        dogfooding & all that. 
17:24:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Neither do I...  Or precompiled headers...  My projects are all only a few files...  Somebody here should use it regularly. 
17:25:08  <garyo>        I can't do precompiled headers because all my stuff is very cross-platform, and a typical precompiled-header organization is pretty different from what you want without them. 
17:25:41  <garyo>        But batch I could use.  Just need time... 
17:26:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     "Ask me for anything except time." 
17:27:46  <garyo>        :-/ 
17:26:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     for 2504, it looks like there's a consensus on anytime +Easy, probably p4.  I'll go with that. 
17:27:53  <garyo>        agree w/ 2504. 
17:28:14  <garyo>        Looks like Steven's back... 
17:28:22  *      sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/x-ofvjygvagdzcapee) has joined #scons 
17:28:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2505, no idea.  And Steven is back. 
17:28:29  <garyo>        Hi again 
17:28:29  <sgk_> back 
17:29:01  <garyo>        So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile? 
17:29:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?" 
17:29:35  <garyo>        ... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it? 
17:30:19  *      sgk<ins> (n=[sgk@67.218.107.243](mailto:sgk@67.218.107.243)) has joined #scons 
17:30:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Back again? 
17:30:45  <garyo>        He's adding underscores :-) 
17:30:53  <sgk</ins>>        ...and that takes time! 
17:30:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I suppose it's one way to score... 
17:31:09  <sgk<ins>>        it reconnected to the wrong wifi while we were at the stop 
17:31:22  <garyo>        got it. 
17:30:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?" 
17:31:29  <garyo>        So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile? 
17:31:35  <garyo>        ... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it? 
17:31:50  <sgk</ins>>        off hand $( $) sounds reasonable, but i haven't looked at the bug in detail 
17:32:14  <garyo>        can you research it since batch was yours? 
17:32:19  <sgk<ins>>        yeah 
17:32:30  <garyo>        ok, thx 
17:32:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     If you can't fix it in a day, say, make it 2.1 p3? 
17:32:52  *      sgk_ has quit (Nick collision from services.) 
17:33:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Bye, Steven 
17:32:58  *      sgk</ins> is now known as sgk_ 
17:33:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, Steven 
17:33:18  <sgk_> sorry, just removing underscores 
17:33:23  <sgk_> yes, i'll update right now 
17:33:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, thanks 
17:33:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2504, resolved 
17:34:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, 2504, anytime p4 +Easy 
17:33:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2505, no idea 
17:34:28  <garyo>        2505: nor me really, someone needs to read the doc. 
17:34:51  <garyo>        I think we should just defer it for now. :-( 
17:35:00  <sgk_> 2505:  i thought that's what we were talking about for 2503 
17:35:03  <sgk_> just put my name on it 
17:35:05  <sgk_> so give it to me 
17:35:23  <garyo>        ok! 
17:35:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ++ 
17:35:35  <garyo>        also 2503 to you, right? 
17:35:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     research? 
17:36:14  <garyo>        yes 
17:36:19  <sgk_> same disposition as 2503, research SK, then 2.1 p3 if fix isn't quick 
17:36:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:36:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2506 
17:37:04  <sgk_> i'd be okay with WONTFIX 
17:37:15  <garyo>        I think we should just let Bill fix it since he found it. 
17:37:19  <sgk_> and if bdbaddog wants it bad enough he can fix it himself... 
17:37:20  <sgk_> agreed 
17:37:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     either works for me 
17:37:38  <garyo>        wontfix is a little dangerous though since it's not even a funny char, just a dirname with three octal chars. 
17:37:52  <sgk_> oh 
17:37:59  <sgk_> okay, then let's give it to bdbaddog 
17:38:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     then 2506 Bill 2.x p3? 
17:38:02  <sgk_> 2.x p3 
17:38:04  <garyo>        +1 
17:38:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:38:11  <sgk_> he can reprioritize if he wants, since it's his 
17:38:38  <sgk_> 2508:  change to anytime p4 
17:38:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     But not +Easy, so who? 
17:38:56  <garyo>        2507? 
17:39:01  <sgk_> do we need to assign anytimes? 
17:39:06  <sgk_> oh, sorry 
17:39:18  <garyo>        how about future? 
17:39:18  <sgk_> skipped down too far 
17:39:20  <sgk_> 2507 
17:39:34  <garyo>        who's our fortran person these days? 
17:39:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Do we have one? 
17:39:49  <garyo>        (silence fills the room) 
17:39:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     David, maybe? 
17:40:00  <sgk_> cricket... cricket... critcket... 
17:40:15  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (more silence) 
17:40:14  <sgk_> david, if he'll take it 
17:40:27  <garyo>        I think you're right, David may know Fortran. 
17:40:26  <sgk_> assign it to him and let him give it back? 
17:40:33  <garyo>        good w/ me 
17:40:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll contact him. 
17:40:34  <sgk_> :-) 
17:40:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:40:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Oops, milestone and priority? 
17:40:56  <garyo>        2.x p4 
17:41:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
17:41:04  <sgk_> done 
17:41:19  <sgk_> now 2508, anytime p4 
17:41:25  <sgk_> do we need to assign an anytime? 
17:41:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, if it's not +Easy 
17:41:55  <garyo>        how about if it's a p4? Maybe those could be left unassigned too? 
17:42:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The +Easy is stuff we hope the community will pick up for us 
17:42:29  <garyo>        true 
17:42:36  <sgk_> okay, then me 
17:42:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:42:51  <garyo>        or maybe we just say wontfix? 
17:43:01  <sgk_> ooh, wontfix isn't a bad idea 
17:43:21  <sgk_> yeah, wontfix 
17:44:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2508, wontfix is OK 
17:43:55  <sgk_> 2509:  garyo, back to OP 
17:43:59  <sgk_> done 
17:44:08  <garyo>        sk: you mean for 2508, right? 
17:44:17  <garyo>        I'd agree w/ that. 
17:44:33  <sgk_> yes, 2508: wontfix, invite re-open and a patch if it's important 
17:43:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2509, VS 
17:43:35  <garyo>        2509: give it to me, I'll ask him to retest w/ trunk. 
17:43:42  <sgk_> with a note that a patch would be accepted if someone wants to make it all work on windows 
17:44:38  <sgk_> 2509:  garyo, note back to OP 
17:44:43  <garyo>        yes 
17:44:43  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:45:08  <garyo>        2510: agree w/ Steven 
17:45:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ditto 
17:45:13  <sgk_> 2510 and 2511:  2.x p3 rob 
17:45:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:45:19  <garyo>        great 
17:45:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2512 
17:45:51  <sgk_> 2512:  2.x p2 since a 2.1 volunteer seems unlikely 
17:46:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I have to agree 
17:46:17  <sgk_> do we need an assignee? 
17:46:20  <garyo>        sure seems like a bug, 2.x p2 is OK.  I could take it then. 
17:46:34  <sgk_> thnx 
17:46:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done, thanks 
17:46:44  <garyo>        (It'll change current behavior of course.) 
17:47:01  <sgk_> understood re: changed behavior 
17:46:42  <sgk_> 2513:  2.x p3 rob 
17:47:04  <sgk_> 2514:  2.x p3 rob 
17:47:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done and done 
17:47:09  <sgk_> go rob! 
17:47:18  <garyo>        agreed 
17:47:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (minimum goal...) 
17:47:48  <sgk_> yeah, i'm still 30 minutes away from stop 
17:48:05  <sgk_> anything else to discuss or should we plung on? 
17:48:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Gary wants to discuss 1.3 release 
17:48:35  <sgk_> k 
17:48:46  <garyo>        I do; mostly I wanted to see if Bill has time to put out the checkpoint.  But he's not here. 
17:49:01  <garyo>        I don't have time to do it, but it needs doing. 
17:49:19  <garyo>        How about if I contact him offline and see what he's up to? 
17:49:27  <sgk_> garyo:  sounds good 
17:49:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo, works for me 
17:49:37  <sgk_> if he can't get at it, let me know and I'll see if i can 
17:49:45  <sgk_> if it's really ready to go it shouldn't be too bad 
17:49:52  <garyo>        ok, thanks for that.  I'll let you know. 
17:50:17  <garyo>        Need to write up the changes but it's basically ready. 
17:50:24  <sgk_> okay re: release 
17:47:56  <garyo>        Aha, 2515 has good information! 
17:48:11  <garyo>        I can use that to improve the 64-bit detection.  Give it to me. 
17:48:19  <garyo>        1.x p3. 
17:48:31  <sgk_> 2515:  1.x p3 garyo 
17:48:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2515, done 
17:49:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2516, invalid 
17:49:22  <sgk_> 2516 invalid 
17:49:32  <garyo>        2516: agreed. 
17:50:15  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2517, puzzling 
17:50:32  <sgk_> 2517:  feels like a defer thing to me 
17:50:40  <sgk_> unless we have a java expert ready to go 
17:50:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, defer 
17:51:09  <garyo>        agree w/ defer. 
17:50:32  <garyo>        sgk_: so do you have a Nexus One???? 
17:50:42  <sgk_> garyo:  yes 
17:51:27  <garyo>        I want one (Nexus One). 
17:51:58  <sgk_> i'm digging it 
17:52:14  <sgk_> big upgrade for me, i was using the G1 they gave us last year 
17:52:41  <garyo>        I have a G1 w/ cyanogen, not too bad.  But I want the big screen, snapdragon cpu. 
17:52:47  <garyo>        Do you miss the keyboard? 
17:52:59  <sgk_> only a little, the touch screen keyboard is pretty good 
17:53:27  <sgk_> i never did too much text though, mainly the occasional search 
17:53:29  <garyo>        Cool. 
17:53:34  <sgk_> not much email 
17:53:43  <garyo>        I'm a big mobile emailer. 
17:53:50  <garyo>        G1 keyboard++ 
17:54:04  <sgk_> yeah, my wife got a droid and the keyboard is really disappointing 
17:51:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     then 2518 also defer? 
17:52:02  <garyo>        2518: should we have issues track SEPs, or just close the issue and refer to the SEP? 
17:53:29  <garyo>        As for 2518, I'd like to close issues that are SEPs, and point them to the SEP.  Otherwise we get commentary in two places. 
17:54:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2518, I'd prefer to have one issue to track a SEP, and mark the others as dups. 
17:54:25  <sgk_> agree w/greg re: an issue to track SEP progress 
17:54:39  <sgk_> either make a SEP keyword, or an SEP subcomponent 
17:54:44  <garyo>        OK, as long as we link both ways. 
17:54:53  <garyo>        SEP <--> issue 
17:55:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I wrote Cem to see if he'll open an issue; if not, I'll do it. 
17:55:16  <garyo>        thanks, sounds good. 
17:55:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk_, good idea; probably a keyword, but I'll think on it and propose something. 
17:56:33  <sgk_> okay, so 2518:  close w/bi-directional reference to SEP 
17:56:44  <garyo>        + 
17:56:50  <sgk_> 2519:  1.3 p1 bill 
17:56:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2519, 1.3 p1 Bill 
17:57:01  <garyo>        and 2519 is 1.3 p1 bill?  (Why is this p1?) 
17:57:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     because it's really trivial? 
17:57:18  <sgk_> p2?  do i hear p2? 
17:57:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     either is fine with me 
17:57:34  <garyo>        I'd prefer that at this point. 
17:57:35  <sgk_> i'd go with p2 just to preserve p1 for really burn-down-the-house things 
17:57:45  <garyo>        especially for 1.3 bugs. 
17:57:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works, done 
17:58:15  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (nominal goal) 
17:57:55  <sgk_> 2520:  2.1 p2 garyo? 
17:58:13  <garyo>        sure, looks like it should be mine 
17:57:58  <sgk_> thnx 
17:58:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, done 
17:59:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Not enough comments; defer? 
17:59:27  <sgk_> defer 
17:59:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     that was 2521 
17:59:47  <sgk_> right 
17:59:50  <garyo>        I haven't looked this far yet 
17:59:52  <garyo>        sorry 
17:59:56  <sgk_> np 
18:00:12  <sgk_> looking ahead for consensus... 
18:00:16  <sgk_> 2524 is on obvious dup 
18:00:38  <sgk_> defer the rest? 
18:01:02  <garyo>        I think so. 
18:01:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK with me 
18:01:10  <sgk_> cool 
18:01:15  <sgk_> good work tonight 
18:01:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, and there should be fewer than 20 next time (assuming it's two weeks) 
18:01:57  <sgk_> that's put us in the week between christmas and new years 
18:02:06  <sgk_> okay by me, but are you two available? 
18:02:05  <garyo>        I'll be around. 
18:02:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     so will I 
18:02:14  <sgk_> let's go for it then 
18:02:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     agreed 
18:02:28  <garyo>        good. 
18:02:45  <garyo>        see you around then... and have a great Christmas! 
18:03:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     right, you two too (to?) 
18:03:13  <sgk_> and both of you as well 
18:03:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     g'night 
18:03:28  *      garyo (n=[garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has left #scons 
18:03:31  <sgk_> [GregNoel](GregNoel):  thanks to your team for the job they did on Dallas...  :-) 
18:03:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Still worrysome; Denver could catch up, as we did last year. 
18:03:35  <sgk_> later 
18:04:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     But we'll keep trying. 
18:04:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     cul 
18:04:24  <sgk_> l8r 
18:04:33  *      You have been marked as being away 
18:04:34  *      sgk_ (n=[sgk@67.218.107.243](mailto:sgk@67.218.107.243)) has left #scons 

Updated