Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2009-12-15

10:41:50 * sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/session) has joined #scons 16:46:32 * garyo ( 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 is still setting up 16:57:46 <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> Hi, Gary... Good. 16:59:00 <GregNoel> Steven isn't here yet, so don't stop now. 17:00:23 <sgk_> hello 17:00:49 <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> 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> 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> 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> concur 17:03:51 <sgk_> future p4? 17:03:56 <sgk_> 3.x p4? 17:04:03 <GregNoel> the latter 17:04:02 <garyo> I still think it's a bug though. I like 3.x p4. 17:04:11 <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> 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> yeah, sigh 17:05:28 <garyo> thanks 17:05:28 <sgk_> thnx 17:05:48 <GregNoel> 2482, I think I have a fix 17:05:53 <garyo> excellent! 17:05:57 <sgk_> GregNoel++ 17:06:28 <sgk_> brb 17:06:46 <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> make it research 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> 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> 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> 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> cool, tks, so 2497 17:13:19 <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> I agree. 17:13:57 <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> done 17:14:37 <sgk_> okay 17:14:55 <garyo> 2498 17:15:04 <sgk_> research SK p... 3? 17:15:12 <GregNoel> yeah 17:15:38 <garyo> ok 17:15:41 <GregNoel> done 17:16:03 <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> 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> so 1.3 p? 17:17:07 <sgk_> research p2, then 2.1 p2 if it's not already fixed? 17:17:18 <GregNoel> works 17:17:20 <garyo> ok 17:17:51 <GregNoel> 2502 who? 17:17:49 <garyo> 2502: I can take that one 17:17:56 <GregNoel> done 17:18:35 <GregNoel> 2503 17:18:29 <garyo> 2503: batch-compilation thing 17:19:08 <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> 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> 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> 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> 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> "Ask me for anything except time." 17:27:46 <garyo> :-/ 17:26:37 <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> 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> 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@ has joined #scons 17:30:31 <GregNoel> Back again? 17:30:45 <garyo> He's adding underscores :-) 17:30:53 <sgk</ins>> ...and that takes time! 17:30:58 <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> 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> 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> Bye, Steven 17:32:58 * sgk</ins> is now known as sgk_ 17:33:05 <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> OK, thanks 17:33:52 <GregNoel> 2504, resolved 17:34:53 <GregNoel> er, 2504, anytime p4 +Easy 17:33:59 <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> ++ 17:35:35 <garyo> also 2503 to you, right? 17:35:36 <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> done 17:36:41 <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> 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> then 2506 Bill 2.x p3? 17:38:02 <sgk_> 2.x p3 17:38:04 <garyo> +1 17:38:10 <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> 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> Do we have one? 17:39:49 <garyo> (silence fills the room) 17:39:58 <GregNoel> David, maybe? 17:40:00 <sgk_> cricket... cricket... critcket... 17:40:15 <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> OK, I'll contact him. 17:40:34 <sgk_> :-) 17:40:38 <GregNoel> done 17:40:42 <GregNoel> Oops, milestone and priority? 17:40:56 <garyo> 2.x p4 17:41:03 <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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> done 17:45:08 <garyo> 2510: agree w/ Steven 17:45:12 <GregNoel> ditto 17:45:13 <sgk_> 2510 and 2511: 2.x p3 rob 17:45:16 <GregNoel> done 17:45:19 <garyo> great 17:45:51 <GregNoel> 2512 17:45:51 <sgk_> 2512: 2.x p2 since a 2.1 volunteer seems unlikely 17:46:01 <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> 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> done and done 17:47:09 <sgk_> go rob! 17:47:18 <garyo> agreed 17:47:32 <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> 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> 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> 2515, done 17:49:14 <GregNoel> 2516, invalid 17:49:22 <sgk_> 2516 invalid 17:49:32 <garyo> 2516: agreed. 17:50:15 <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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 2519, 1.3 p1 Bill 17:57:01 <garyo> and 2519 is 1.3 p1 bill? (Why is this p1?) 17:57:17 <GregNoel> because it's really trivial? 17:57:18 <sgk_> p2? do i hear p2? 17:57:33 <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> works, done 17:58:15 <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> ok, done 17:59:11 <GregNoel> Not enough comments; defer? 17:59:27 <sgk_> defer 17:59:29 <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> OK with me 18:01:10 <sgk_> cool 18:01:15 <sgk_> good work tonight 18:01:38 <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> so will I 18:02:14 <sgk_> let's go for it then 18:02:26 <GregNoel> agreed 18:02:28 <garyo> good. 18:02:45 <garyo> see you around then... and have a great Christmas! 18:03:05 <GregNoel> right, you two too (to?) 18:03:13 <sgk_> and both of you as well 18:03:22 <GregNoel> g'night 18:03:28 * garyo ( has left #scons 18:03:31 <sgk_> GregNoel: thanks to your team for the job they did on Dallas... :-) 18:03:58 <GregNoel> Still worrysome; Denver could catch up, as we did last year. 18:03:35 <sgk_> later 18:04:18 <GregNoel> But we'll keep trying. 18:04:20 <GregNoel> cul 18:04:24 <sgk_> l8r 18:04:33 * You have been marked as being away 18:04:34 * sgk_ (n=sgk@ has left #scons