Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-01-19

16:49:02 * garyo ( has joined #scons 16:53:33 * sgk ( has joined #scons 16:54:27 * Jason_at_Intel (n=chatzill@ has joined #scons 16:54:37 <sgk> GregNoel: i'll be a bit late getting back to the meeting, ~1705 - 1710 16:54:48 <Jason_at_Intel> hello 16:55:36 <garyo> Hi folks 16:55:46 <Jason_at_Intel> Hi Gary! 17:00:52 * You are no longer marked as being away 17:00:58 <GregNoel> Hi, all. It's raining in San Diego and I've already had a few power fluctuations today (but no trips yet, knock on wood). 17:00:59 * GregNoel raps smartly on his head 17:00:59 <GregNoel> Ow! In any event, if I suddenly drop off-line, assume I've lost power and I'll get back as soon as I can. 17:01:51 <garyo> Hi Greg. 17:08:44 <garyo> SO folks, on to the bugs? 17:09:09 <sgk> hey all 17:09:16 <Jason_at_Intel> Hi steve! 17:09:21 <GregNoel> Ah, welcome back. 17:09:23 <garyo> Hi Steve 17:09:25 <GregNoel> Shall we get started? 2534 is first up. 17:09:43 <garyo> George Foot's comment seems apropos. Doc p3? 17:10:03 <GregNoel> No, Steven thought it was a bug last time. 17:10:33 <garyo> OK I'm confused, the ssheet note says default type is Entry, but I think it's File. 17:10:43 <garyo> Steven? 17:10:52 <GregNoel> Steven? 17:10:59 <Jason_at_Intel> I thought this was to be researched 17:11:21 <garyo> I like that: steven, research. 17:11:30 <sgk> sorry, catching up on the conversation 17:11:35 <sgk> been a hellish day 17:11:40 <garyo> sorry 2 hear that 17:11:49 <garyo> I have a lot of those these days :-/ 17:11:55 <sgk> ooo sick; power outage; etc. 17:12:29 <GregNoel> My lights just flickered, so I can empathize (not sympathize) 17:12:21 <sgk> 2534: think we should give it to me to research 17:12:25 <garyo> +1 17:12:37 <GregNoel> done 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 1910, 2361, 780, 914, 1187, 1745, 1883, 1945: bypass for lack of comments 17:12:50 <GregNoel> (Yes, Steven, 914 reluctantly) 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2058 consensus 2.0 p1 stevenknight 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2070 consensus 2.0 p1 stevenknight 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2096, I think Gary needs to agree, but otherwise consensus 2.x p4 +sconf_revamp 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2249 17:13:27 <Jason_at_Intel> woo 17:14:10 <garyo> 2096: I agree, 2.x p4 17:14:52 <GregNoel> 2096, done 17:13:47 <sgk> greg re: 914 17:13:53 <GregNoel> yes? 17:13:58 <sgk> how about if we make that future p4 or something so it doesn't get lost 17:14:07 <sgk> agree that the general concept of XML for results is good 17:14:18 <sgk> but nothing is burning for it right now 17:14:33 <GregNoel> future p4 is off the radar, but I'll go along. 17:15:19 <GregNoel> 914, other consensus? 17:15:30 <garyo> agree w/ 914 17:15:32 <sgk> future p3, then 17:15:37 <GregNoel> done 17:16:05 <garyo> My Issue List query doesn't match the spreadsheet today :-/ 17:16:58 <GregNoel> garyo, a bunch of issues from last time are still there, formerly Steven's research issues. 17:16:18 <sgk> 2249: research bdbaddog (since he volunteered) 17:16:26 <GregNoel> done 17:16:58 <garyo> OR: 2249: ask OP if it still happens. 17:17:34 <sgk> 2249: that's a reasonable suggestion for the update 17:17:44 <garyo> It's a year old and vs_revamp is better. 17:17:49 <sgk> yep 17:18:11 <sgk> 2249: research bdbaddog, comment suggests asking OP 17:18:17 <garyo> +1 17:18:23 <GregNoel> done 17:18:39 <GregNoel> 2304 17:18:39 <sgk> 2304: research SK 17:18:42 <Jason_at_Intel> I should comment on 2304, I might have a work around for this one, but i have to finish the testing of this in Parts yet 17:19:19 <GregNoel> I don't believe that's possible 17:18:59 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: sounds good 17:19:17 <garyo> OK, let's assign it to jason to research? 17:19:33 <Jason_at_Intel> it will probably need a patch to the File object 17:19:45 <garyo> ??? 17:19:45 <sgk> GregNoel: re your comment: agreed we may not be able to build on top of the locked executable 17:19:51 <GregNoel> rebuilding a program as the same time you're running it is NOT a good idea, no matter where or when. 17:20:00 <sgk> but we should handle the error gracefully and not die 17:20:04 <garyo> Of course not on Windows, but at least interactive mode could recover. 17:20:10 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree with that.. but the system should not die 17:20:24 <sgk> you should be able to stay in interactive mode and build other things 17:20:33 <sgk> or rebuild the same executable next time 17:20:31 <garyo> ok we all agree. research jason? 17:20:31 <GregNoel> On IX, the file is overwritten, so the code will change out from under the running program. NOT a good idea. 17:20:36 <Jason_at_Intel> Scons dies with the unlink Action() 17:21:01 <garyo> Greg: on IX I do this all the time, multiple times daily. And yes, sometimes I pay the price. :-) 17:21:23 <sgk> agreed, but people do things like this, so the question is how do we want to handle it? 17:21:26 <GregNoel> consensus? 17:21:37 <sgk> research Jason_at_Intel if he's up for it 17:21:39 <sgk> otherwise SK 17:21:47 <garyo> Recover as best as possible, with build failure msg. Just the same as "out of disk space." 17:22:01 <Jason_at_Intel> basically 17:22:11 <garyo> jason, will you take it on? 17:22:16 <Jason_at_Intel> Sure 17:22:19 <GregNoel> OK 17:22:20 <garyo> ok, done 17:22:25 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel++ 17:22:39 <GregNoel> 2347 consensus 2.x p3 +symlink 17:22:39 <GregNoel> 2536 17:22:57 <sgk> i like greg's suggestion of research OP 17:23:17 <GregNoel> so do I, or I wouldn't have suggested it. {;-} 17:23:36 <garyo> Yeah, makes sense 2 me too. 17:23:39 <sgk> done 17:23:49 <GregNoel> done 17:23:53 <GregNoel> 2537 FIXED (thanks, Steven!) 17:23:53 <GregNoel> 2538 I don't like anytime issues assigned to Steven, but I'll go with the flow 17:24:06 <sgk> agreed on both counts 17:24:21 <sgk> done 17:24:25 <sgk> ? 17:24:36 <GregNoel> consensus? 17:24:50 <garyo> ok 17:24:56 <GregNoel> done 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2540 FIXED (thanks, Steven!) 17:24:59 <GregNoel> (We've achieved the minimal target for today; congratulations to us!) 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2541, 2542, 2545: bypass for lack of comments 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2546 consensus WONTFIX 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2547, 2548, 2549: bypass for lack of comments 17:24:59 <GregNoel> (We've achieved the nominal target for today; I suppose congratulations are due, but it seems rather empty since we'll see so many again next time.) 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2550, 2551, 2552, 2553, 2554, 2555, 2556 (so close!), 2557: bypass for lack of comments 17:24:59 <GregNoel> And that's all for today... Is there any discussion needed about releasing 1.3? With the checkpoint released today, plan for two weeks, so about January 31st? (That is, a year late...) 17:25:18 <garyo> Steven, I can work that kind of thing in the bg so if it becomes a timesink let me know. 17:25:53 <sgk> garyo: the irc channel? 17:25:57 <garyo> sgk: yes. 17:26:22 <sgk> cool, i'll take you up on that if it gets thorny 17:26:28 <garyo> np 17:25:45 <garyo> Greg: I think since this ckpoint is very minimally different from the last except doc, a week is enough. Just my opinion though. 17:26:59 <GregNoel> garyo, yes, but only if it's really pushed on the mailing lists to get the maximal feedback. 17:27:18 <garyo> I'm itching to get 1.3 out. I think we've checkpointed it to death. Greg: great idea re: ML pushing. I will do that. 17:27:22 <bdbaddog> Greetings.. sorry I'm late.. 17:27:53 <garyo> Hey Bill! Good job getting both checkpoints out! 17:27:40 <Jason_at_Intel> so what is holding up 1.3 17:27:52 <Jason_at_Intel> I am sort of for making it happen 17:27:36 <sgk> should we try to look at some of the issues that have two consensus comments? 17:27:54 <GregNoel> sgk, cherry-pick away... 17:28:02 <sgk> if others add "verbal" consensus we won't have to revisit so many 17:29:09 <GregNoel> that was the point of the fusillade, so if you want to try to get verbal consensus to get rid of them, I'm all for it. 17:28:18 * sgk scrolls back in the spreadsheet... 17:29:08 <sgk> 2547 and 2548: future p1 +java 17:29:10 <sgk> any objections? 17:29:56 <GregNoel> 2547, 2548, I'll go along; any others? 17:29:37 <sgk> hang on, table 2547 and 2548, let's finish the 1.3 discussion first 17:30:36 <garyo> 2547,2548: I'm fine w/ future p1 +java. sigh. :-) 17:31:04 <GregNoel> 2547, 2548, that's three; done 17:28:20 <garyo> Jason: we just need to let Bill's last checkpoint stew for long enough to make sure it's not got horrible bugs. 17:28:45 <Jason_at_Intel> ok 17:29:10 <garyo> That's why I say 1 week, not the usual 2. Bill, opinion on how long to let the checkpoint stew? 17:29:43 <bdbaddog> We going with 2 weeks again (of stew time)? I'd be up for shorter, but I don't remember what changes between last checkpoint and this one was, if mostly doc, then 1week is good by me. 17:30:05 <sgk> 1 week seems good to me 17:30:12 <garyo> I put in one significant fix to detect 64 vs. 32 bit OS default. That's it I think. 17:30:16 <bdbaddog> O.k. so 1/24/2010 17:30:30 <sgk> i'm anticipating more users and problem reports when we officially release 1.3 regardless of whether it's 1 or 2 weeks 17:30:46 <garyo> sgk: I agree, that's another reason to get it out sooner. 17:30:57 <sgk> at this point an extra week soaking 1.3 checkpoints isn't the crucial difference between success and failure 17:30:57 <garyo> So we can do 1.3.1 sooner :-/ 17:31:20 <sgk> right, we should be ready to jump on 1.3 bug reports and prep 1.3.1 17:31:24 <sgk> my gut says about a month after 17:31:44 <garyo> sgk: maybe, let's see. 17:31:23 <garyo> ok, is that consensus? Next weekend is 1.3? 17:31:56 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree... get 1.3 out earlier and let a 1.3.1 fix issues found in 1.3.. this way more people will test it 17:31:57 <garyo> But we can start on the 2.0 work immediately. 17:32:01 <sgk> i'll be happy to be wrong and go straight to 2.0... :-) 17:32:12 <GregNoel> yep 17:32:20 <bdbaddog> so at 1.3 release we create a 1.3 branch? 17:32:32 <bdbaddog> and trunk becomes pre-2.0 ? 17:32:32 <GregNoel> Er, SVN doesn't work that way. 17:32:45 <GregNoel> No need to branch until you need it. 17:32:56 <GregNoel> If you know what I mean. 17:33:24 <sgk> either way it'd have the same effect 17:33:31 <bdbaddog> so just cp and then branch from that if needed? 17:33:35 <garyo> Sure, but we might as well create it when we do 1.3 so people have an official place to work on 1.3.1 rather than making the first person to fix something have to create it. 17:33:45 <sgk> i can see an argument for branching right away because I doubt we'll get through a big change like vs_revamp in 1.3 unscathed 17:33:46 <garyo> That's how I usually do it. 17:33:59 <sgk> what garyo said 17:34:01 <Jason_at_Intel> it seems we woudl want to make a 1.3 branch and have truck be 2.0.. and make a 1.3.1 branch we add patches to for a 1.3.1 drop 17:34:06 <bdbaddog> +1 for branching 1.3 at 1.3 release. 17:34:20 <sgk> okay, let's go for it (scm orthodoxy be damned... :-)) 17:34:21 <garyo> Just cp trunk to tag, then cp tag to branch. And yes, trunk becomes pre-2.0. 17:34:25 <bdbaddog> there'd be a 1.3 release, and a 1.3 branch 17:34:34 <bdbaddog> +1 garyo's description. 17:35:01 <GregNoel> So branch trunk to branches/1.3.fixes or some such? Sure, why not? Branches are cheap. 17:35:30 <GregNoel> ... or branch release? That should be discussed. 17:34:55 <bdbaddog> so then BB does trunk? and/or 1.3? 17:35:27 <garyo> what's BB, Bill? 17:35:32 <bdbaddog> BuildBot 17:35:36 <garyo> ah yes. 17:35:49 <garyo> Good question. 17:36:06 <garyo> Is it realistic to want both? 17:36:19 <GregNoel> BB already does trunk, checkpoint, release, and branches/, so what are you saying? 17:36:40 <garyo> Really? I didn't know that. In that case, just carry on. 17:37:07 <sgk> yeah, GregNoel added mutliple branch support 17:37:25 <sgk> surprised me too, but it tested all of bdbaddog's recent checkpoint patches 17:39:02 <bdbaddog> Way to go Greg! 17:37:31 <garyo> Cool, is that just in our BB or sent upstream? 17:38:02 <GregNoel> It's one of the examples in the BB manual, so I think they know about it. 17:38:13 <garyo> good. 17:38:31 <garyo> OK, sounds like most of a plan! 17:38:44 <bdbaddog> :) 17:38:37 <sgk> go 1.3! 17:39:01 <GregNoel> Geaux Saints! 17:38:58 <garyo> Yeah! And thanks bdbaddog for all the grunt work on the checkpoints! 17:39:15 <sgk> okay, and we have consensus on 2547, 2548 17:39:20 <sgk> on to more of the issues? 17:39:34 <bdbaddog> sure. 17:39:36 <GregNoel> any others you want to cherry-pick? 17:40:17 <garyo> how about 2556? 17:40:17 <sgk> 2556: send it back to OP for test case? 17:40:23 <sgk> jinx 17:40:42 <garyo> OK, 2556 came from a ML discussion. I'll ask him to paste in the testcase. 17:41:56 <GregNoel> 2556, should we close it and ask him to reopen when he adds the test case? 17:42:14 <sgk> 2556: sure, that works 17:42:14 <garyo> Nah, I'll just comment on the tkt as is. 17:42:37 <GregNoel> (is there such a thing as a reverse jinx?) 17:42:23 <garyo> I asked him to report it anyway. 17:42:27 <sgk> oh, okay 17:41:17 <GregNoel> done 17:40:27 <Jason_at_Intel> 2542? 17:40:40 <sgk> and 2557: conensus 2.1 p2 rob? 17:41:13 <garyo> +1 on 2557. 17:41:17 <GregNoel> done 17:41:29 <sgk> cool 17:41:40 <sgk> i have another topic if we're (nominally) done with issues for this week 17:41:51 <garyo> shoot 17:42:48 <sgk> next topic: scrapping in favor of using unittest as the harness 17:43:06 <GregNoel> Ulp. 17:43:28 <sgk> turned out to be pretty easy to do 17:43:51 <sgk> or at least to prototype 17:43:57 <GregNoel> How would it work? 17:44:09 <sgk> well, that's why i want to discuss it 17:44:29 <Jason_at_Intel> you mean the python unit test lib? 17:44:12 <garyo> sgk: Can you reuse all the stuff in QMTest/ dir? There's a lot of value in there. 17:44:31 <garyo> (e.g., 17:44:39 <sgk> garyo: yeah, that stuff all stays 17:44:50 <garyo> ok, good. 17:44:56 <sgk> those are basically test fixtures 17:45:11 <sgk> what i prototyped was a simple shotgun marriage 17:45:27 <sgk> where unittest still calls out (using subprocess) to execute individual test scripts like today 17:45:35 <sgk> but it reports the results back using unittest conventions 17:45:46 <sgk> so it looks like a python unittest for reporting 17:45:55 <sgk> but is (at least for now) still just executing scripts 17:46:04 <bdbaddog> does that enable/block parallel testing? 17:46:23 <sgk> unfortunately, it looks like unittest itself doesn't enable parallel testing 17:46:27 <sgk> so it's orthogonal 17:46:48 <sgk> i.e. this change doesn't make parallel testing more or less likely 17:46:46 <garyo> So the main benefit is prettier output? 17:47:14 <sgk> yeah, this is why I was a little... hesitant... when the idea of unittest seemed to get a positive reaction from you guys a few weeks back 17:47:19 <sgk> (iirc) 17:47:29 <Jason_at_Intel> Do you have thie prototyped checked in? 17:47:45 <GregNoel> Hmmm... I'd have to think about this. Why don't you add it to SConsTestingRevisions in the wiki? 17:47:33 <bdbaddog> upside is less infrastructure to maintain? 17:47:49 <sgk> right, is all homebrew, this leverages unittest 17:48:16 <sgk> but that doesn't necessarily seem like a really compelling reason to switch 17:48:06 <Jason_at_Intel> I coudl use it in Parts i think to handle some cases that are hard to handle with a straight unittest code 17:48:27 <garyo> is only 834 lines, not huge. 17:48:31 <GregNoel> You'd still need a test runner, but it wouldn't be as complex... I still need to think about it. 17:48:55 <sgk> okay, the code isn't much, I'll add it to the wiki and send out something to the ML for discussion 17:49:12 <bdbaddog> sounds good. then we can play with it (time allowing).. 17:49:16 <garyo> sgk: my biggest beef with QMtest was managing stdout/stderr when debugging tests (not just running them where you always want it hidden). 17:49:30 <GregNoel> concur 17:49:32 <garyo> Would unittest maybe help? 17:49:31 <sgk> garyo: this doesn't solve that 17:49:37 <garyo> oh well. 17:49:45 <sgk> you're still running external scripts and having to capture the output 17:49:51 <sgk> what I could do about that, though.... 17:50:05 <sgk> is expose the Trace() function as a supported part of the API 17:50:24 <sgk> that writes to /dev/tty on POSIX and con on Windows 17:50:34 <sgk> so you can at least add debug prints easily 17:50:18 <garyo> That'd help somewhat. 17:50:41 <Jason_at_Intel> unittest makes it easy to set up a structure to run on a give test at a time 17:51:03 <garyo> can do that too. 17:51:02 <sgk> okay, follow-on test discussion: 17:51:28 <sgk> all the in-line test code in strings 17:51:44 <sgk> which makes it a pain to read the test code 17:51:51 <sgk> and complicates going forward to Python 3.0 17:51:58 <garyo> plus most of them are big regexes now anyway :-) 17:52:17 <garyo> you have a solution?! 17:52:38 <sgk> yeah, i think so 17:52:52 <sgk> we change the unit of test granularity from individual files to directories 17:53:21 <sgk> each directory is a test config with the input SConstruct .c etc. files checked in directly 17:52:30 <loonycyborg> sgk: btw how exactly you're planning to upgrade to python3? 17:52:52 <GregNoel> Hi, Sergey; thanks for being with us again! 17:52:54 <garyo> Hi Sergey 17:52:58 <sgk> Sergey++ 17:53:13 <loonycyborg> That'll require all SConstruct files moved to python3 too. 17:53:23 <GregNoel> directories, erk.. 17:53:48 <bdbaddog> That's the way I usually setup regressions for my clients.. so I'm all for that. 17:53:49 <garyo> radical! 17:54:01 <bdbaddog> A dir per test. or group of tests? 17:53:47 <sgk> the test script(s) within a directory have identifying prefixes 17:54:08 <sgk> so you can actually have multiple individual tests re-using the same config (directory) 17:54:32 <sgk> the test infrastructure copies the directory contents (except for test scripts and .svn directories) to the temp dir to run the test 17:54:41 <loonycyborg> You could as well make a full api overhaul coincide with moving to python3 :P 17:55:10 <sgk> loonycyborg: that's actually worth considering 17:55:26 <sgk> at least, maybe use it as a clean way to shed some of the cruftier parts of the current API 17:55:25 <garyo> sgk: I get it -- so even sub/a/b kind of things just get checked in. 17:55:38 <sgk> garyo: right 17:55:48 <sgk> i think it makes the test configurations more comprehensible 17:55:52 <bdbaddog> I've very tired of having to put all the files in strings in the tests.. 17:56:00 <sgk> yep 17:56:12 <garyo> sgk: I think there are still some cases where files have to be dynamically created etc. but a small %age, so this would clean up a lot. 17:56:22 <sgk> right, it also doesn't completely solve things like updating files as an intermediate step 17:56:55 <garyo> But what about testing stdout/stderr? Special files to represent expected output? 17:57:16 <sgk> yeah, those could either be checked in as .golden files or something 17:57:29 <sgk> or else those can stay in-line if it makes more sense to not clutter the config 17:57:17 <bdbaddog> "golden" files in my industry.. 17:57:39 <Jason_at_Intel> gold files here :-) 17:57:44 <sgk> i think that's less of a problem since they're (typically) not actually code 17:58:03 <garyo> Cool. With regex semantics I assume. I want to think about this, but it seems very sensible on the face of it. 17:58:17 <GregNoel> concur w/ garyo 17:58:32 <sgk> okay, let's let it sink in for a bit 17:58:40 <bdbaddog> +1 for me. I'm all for it. 17:58:49 <garyo> I'll pick a few tests randomly to see how they'd look. 17:58:51 <sgk> if we want to go forward with it, i'm looking for a read on the right priority 17:58:59 <GregNoel> I think adding it to the existing wiki page for testing cleanup is the first step. 17:59:01 <sgk> we could actually also do it incrementally 17:59:17 <garyo> sgk: +1 17:59:20 <Jason_at_Intel> incrementally ++ 17:59:25 <GregNoel> that's why I suggest the wiki page, so we could break down what can be done first 17:59:36 <sgk> sure 17:59:44 <GregNoel> ... and add a discussion page to the wiki page... 17:59:53 <garyo> If you can make the test runner run these, that would be a great step. 17:59:50 <sgk> my rough idea for incremental is 18:00:03 * sgk decides to save that for the wiki page... 17:59:50 <bdbaddog> BTW.. are we due for a moin moin update? 18:00:10 <garyo> bdbaddog: are we? I can do that if needed. 18:00:30 <GregNoel> moin, long overdue; they're at 1.9 already... 18:00:45 <garyo> OK, I'll look into it in the next wk or 2. 18:00:50 <sgk> garyo: thnx 18:01:15 <GregNoel> garyo, please coordinate with me, so we can upgrade at the same time. 18:01:16 <Jason_at_Intel> <wishing the Tigris wiki site would be upgraded > 18:01:34 <garyo> Greg: will do. 18:01:09 <sgk> what should be my top priority right now? the legal stuff? 18:01:53 <garyo> Steven: what are the choices? 18:02:23 <GregNoel> sgk, I nominate finishing out any 1.3 stuff, then the legal stuff, then the 2.0 stuff 18:02:48 <sgk> legal stuff, 1.3 stuff, 2.0 stuff, test infrastructure, performance graph stuff 18:03:11 <Jason_at_Intel> greg++ 18:03:11 <sgk> actually, i don't have any 1.3 issues on my list at the moment 18:03:32 <GregNoel> yeah, but something might appear. set the priorities now. 18:03:17 <garyo> ok, get the legal stuff done with. I don't think you have any significant 1.3 todos. 18:03:41 <garyo> GregNoel++ 18:03:39 <sgk> oh, also string template refactoring 18:04:03 <GregNoel> what refactoring? 18:04:23 <sgk> re-doing subst() and subst_list() for performance 18:03:53 <garyo> 2526? 18:04:06 <sgk> yeah 18:04:27 <garyo> My opinion: too late for 1.3, it could introduce new bugs. 18:04:36 <sgk> using the same generatl technique of string.Template in the Python lib 18:04:46 <sgk> oh, definitely not that for 1.3 18:05:10 <sgk> don't want to derail that train 18:05:06 <bdbaddog> I think for 1.3, only doc bugs and regressions.. 18:05:20 <garyo> ok, so make 2526 2.1 then. 18:05:51 <bdbaddog> are you on to another spreadsheet? 18:06:08 <garyo> (No, I just brought up all Steven's issues.) 18:06:15 <bdbaddog> ahh o.k. 18:05:56 <garyo> So I'm with Greg: any 1.3 issues, then legal stuff, then 2.0 stuff. 18:06:50 <sgk> okay, i think i'm set then 18:06:57 <garyo> excellent. 18:06:58 * sgk grits his teeth in anticipation of talking to lawyers 18:07:37 <garyo> On a totally unrelated note, my Nexus One is the most awesome pocket computing device ever made. Google ftw! 18:08:30 <sgk> garyo: i'm totally digging mine. the keyboard interface is good for you? 18:08:59 <garyo> sgk: yes, no problems at all. 18:07:41 <GregNoel> I'd also reconsider the 1.3 all-doc issues (upgrading the user's guide) and see if they can be done for 2.0, but have Steven parcel them out to sucke, ah, people of his choice. 18:08:14 <garyo> Good point Greg -- we need to move the rest of the 1.3 issues forward. Can you do that? 18:08:34 <GregNoel> For everything except the doc, yes, I have a policy I apply. 18:08:41 <garyo> Now that the doc procedure is improved I should be able to help there. 18:08:56 * sgk remembers that he has to write up that README... 18:09:35 <garyo> re: doc readme: yes please. 18:09:57 <sgk> k, that's probably P(-1) for me then 18:10:03 <sgk> the legal stuff is all P0 18:10:08 <GregNoel> (For what it's worth, the policy is to move the issues forward to the next point release, but bump their priority by one so they'll get more consideration at the next level.) 18:10:29 <garyo> Sensible. 18:10:30 <sgk> sounds good 18:11:02 <GregNoel> Is applying for a group also p0? 18:11:15 <sgk> i suppose so 18:11:28 <GregNoel> I'm in agreement then. 18:11:25 <garyo> Are we going to get kicked out or something if we don't apply? 18:11:51 <garyo> If so, then I agree. This channel works nicely. 18:12:02 <sgk> garyo: i don't think we're going to get kicked out 18:12:17 <sgk> but we're restricted in what we can do administratively 18:12:25 <GregNoel> garyo, no, we're grandfathered, since our channel was formed 6+ years ago, and the policy is only 4 years old. 18:12:46 <GregNoel> but it would be good to abide by the policy. 18:12:52 <sgk> it was a bit of a hassle to transfer ownership from TTimo to me because we don't fully exist under the new rules 18:13:05 <garyo> Makes sense to get it done then. 18:13:23 <GregNoel> can at least start the process to show good faith. 18:13:42 <sgk> BTW, GregNoel: i looked around at some other channels 18:14:00 <sgk> it seems like using | as the separator between sections of the topic is more the norm than - 18:14:10 <GregNoel> OK, wilco 18:14:51 * sgk has changed the topic to: SCons | building software, better | | next bug triage party is Tue 2 Feb 2010 17h00 US/Pacific 18:14:55 <garyo> Greg, guess your power held out today! 18:15:01 <GregNoel> so far... 18:14:50 <GregNoel> Next party on Groundhog's day? 18:15:15 <sgk> excellent! we can have the next bug party over and over and over again... 18:15:24 <garyo> :-) 18:15:49 <GregNoel> sgk, ++ 18:15:36 <GregNoel> Ten points to anybody who can spell where the Groundhog's Day official celebration is held... 18:15:47 <sgk> Punxatawney PA 18:15:47 <garyo> punxatawney 18:16:04 <garyo> sgk: you win 18:16:05 <GregNoel> jinx, you guys are too good. 18:16:20 <garyo> I was a spelling bee kid in my youth 18:16:41 <Jason_at_Intel> :-) I was not :-) 18:17:03 <GregNoel> It's not far from where my wife grew up, so she can frustrate me by spelling it... all I can manage is punx* 18:16:39 <bdbaddog> And a the groudhog's name? 18:16:44 <sgk> Phil 18:16:44 <garyo> phil 18:16:59 <bdbaddog> :) 18:17:03 <Jason_at_Intel> look at the trivial buffs 18:17:09 <GregNoel> yes, Phill 18:17:16 <sgk> damn, the amount of grey matter garyo and i have devoted to this stuff is scary 18:17:22 <GregNoel> (two ll's I think) 18:17:33 <garyo> two Ls: I doubt it. 18:18:13 <GregNoel> oops, the wife agrees. 18:18:18 <GregNoel> mea culpa. 18:18:35 <garyo> anyway, bdbaddog: can you manage the release cycle? If so, how can I help? 18:19:00 <bdbaddog> as far as building and pushing the packages, no prob. 18:19:16 <garyo> OK, I can help w/ release announcements etc. 18:19:22 <bdbaddog> might need some help on the create 1.3 branch commands. 18:19:32 <garyo> np, just ask. 18:19:45 <Jason_at_Intel> Steve: code review? good time to talk ? 18:20:30 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: let's set up something for next week 18:21:11 <Jason_at_Intel> Steve.. I have a check in to sync with teh public drop yet... but that sounds good 18:21:24 <Jason_at_Intel> do we want anyone else to be part of this? 18:21:30 <Jason_at_Intel> such as Gary or Greg? 18:21:58 <garyo> If I can get out there I'd love to. I don't get to travel much these days... hopefully spring will slow down @ work a little. 18:22:05 <sgk> garyo/GregNoel/bdbaddog: any of you interested in participating in discussion of how to integrate Parts ? 18:22:16 <bdbaddog> for 3.0? 18:22:27 <Jason_at_Intel> or 2.x 18:22:31 <sgk> not sure, that needs discussion 18:22:34 <bdbaddog> :) 18:22:37 <Jason_at_Intel> depending on what people think 18:22:39 <sgk> what it should ultimately look like, time frame, etc. 18:22:45 <garyo> I am, especially the toolchain part of it. 18:22:55 <garyo> (or merge it w/ other toolchain ideas) 18:22:59 <sgk> right 18:23:16 <bdbaddog> is there a wiki page to bring me up to speed? 18:23:19 <sgk> k, i'm thinking we should structure it like a subproject for now? 18:23:24 <Jason_at_Intel> can i set up a phone conference for this.. talk is better for me 18:24:05 <Jason_at_Intel> I can set up one through work 18:24:13 <Jason_at_Intel> as this is a work task for me :-) 18:23:45 <bdbaddog> I hate talking.. IM is my friend. 18:24:05 <GregNoel> I hate talking AND typing.. Mail is my friend. 18:24:13 <bdbaddog> GN: :) 18:23:31 <garyo> skype is good 18:24:17 <sgk> i'm okay w/phone or skype so long as someone volunteers to take good notes 18:24:27 <sgk> the best thing about IM to me is the log 18:24:33 <garyo> That's a really good point. 18:24:45 <Jason_at_Intel> and that is fine.. but teh review will be slow and long 18:25:01 <sgk> we may want a mix of the two 18:25:07 <garyo> We need to prepare first so we can go faster. 18:25:19 <sgk> (garyo: good point re: prep) 18:25:10 <sgk> how about start w/voice or skype 18:25:35 <sgk> since the first conversations will be a little more brainstorm-y 18:26:02 <sgk> and (maybe) transition to irc if we start settling on things and only have to iron out details 18:26:01 <Jason_at_Intel> this sound reasonable... get our ducks in a row... 18:26:16 <garyo> ok w/ me 18:26:18 <sgk> over time, i mean, not within one session 18:26:46 <GregNoel> (YouTube, anyone? {;-}) 18:26:59 <sgk> okay, so the action item is that Jason_at_intel and I set up a time for a voice / skype chat next week 18:27:07 <bdbaddog> I'd say write something up on the wiki, give us a week on email list, then conf call. 18:27:16 <sgk> open invitation to the conf. call 18:27:24 <garyo> Sounds good. 18:27:34 <sgk> w/approval of course 18:27:42 <sgk> and we'll figure out the record-keeping by then 18:27:51 <sgk> and try to have some agenda ahead of time 18:27:58 <bdbaddog> k. 18:28:13 <sgk> based on that, i'm thinking it makes more sense for Jason_at_intel and i to organize next week 18:28:22 <sgk> with a target of the conf. call the week following 18:28:23 <Jason_at_Intel> SO steve you will give me an e-mail? 18:28:38 <GregNoel> Maybe agenda in a spreadsheet, so we can note/comment in advance? 18:29:07 <sgk> GregNoel: good idea re: the spreadsheet, that's working well here 18:28:52 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: send me something on Monday to get the ball rolling 18:28:53 <garyo> Jason: it's still @ right? 18:29:02 <Jason_at_Intel> yep 18:29:15 <garyo> I have a note I'm supposed to review ConfigToolsandChainNotes there 18:31:13 <Jason_at_Intel> ya... reading the document i have would be nice start 18:31:22 <Jason_at_Intel> even if it a little out of date ina few places 18:29:07 <Jason_at_Intel> big update coming 18:29:29 <Jason_at_Intel> major reporting /coloring/logging overhaual 18:29:29 <sgk> Jason_at_intel: is Parts attracting many users? 18:29:50 <Jason_at_Intel> I get odd mails here and there .. have a few bugs 18:29:43 <garyo> sgk: I'd suggest a Wave but not everyone has it or knows how to use it 18:30:13 <GregNoel> A wave would be good, actually, maybe for the comments and notes? 18:30:05 <Jason_at_Intel> It is beta.. or not 1.x yet... so people are holding off 18:30:03 <bdbaddog> I have wave. 18:30:08 <bdbaddog> can invite everyone else.. 18:30:09 <sgk> garyo: are you actively using wave? 18:30:18 <garyo> no, nobody else I know has it 18:30:21 <sgk> hmm 18:30:29 <garyo> a one-user wave is kinda lonely 18:31:10 <GregNoel> "Wave without a shore" 18:31:03 <sgk> i haven't had a good excuse to really try to use it 18:31:37 <bdbaddog> I don't see any of you guys in my wave contact list. 18:32:04 <garyo> how do I add you or vice versa? 18:32:09 <Jason_at_Intel> Is Wave any good? 18:32:16 <bdbaddog> I'm on as 18:32:17 <garyo> don't know yet 18:32:29 <bdbaddog> try adding me as a contact under wave. 18:32:29 <Jason_at_Intel> it seemed sort of in the works 18:32:41 <garyo> just did it 18:32:52 <garyo> I'm 18:32:54 <sgk> bdbaddog: have you been using it regularly? how's the stability for you? in which browser? 18:33:04 <bdbaddog> haven't been, Firefox.. 18:33:41 <bdbaddog> Grey, Jason, Steven, do you all have wave accounts? 18:34:08 <sgk> i do on my google account but not my external gmail account 18:34:18 <GregNoel> Grey===Greg? No, not a permanent one 18:35:02 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: oopsie... 18:34:26 <Jason_at_Intel> I need to be invited it says 18:34:39 <bdbaddog> email accouts for invites? 18:35:00 * sgk just realizes that his macbook pro is still running Firefox 2.0.x... :-/ 18:35:01 <Jason_at_Intel> 18:35:19 <bdbaddog> aol.. really? ;) 18:35:52 <garyo> aol omg! 18:35:28 <Jason_at_Intel> it for the junk mail 18:35:26 <bdbaddog> just sent an invite 2 u. 18:35:29 <sgk> sweet 18:35:40 <bdbaddog> Steven - do you have an acct? 18:35:54 <sgk> bdbaddog: sure, add 18:36:20 <bdbaddog> says "user does not have a wave account" 18:36:32 <sgk> oh, sorry, still need invite 18:36:53 <bdbaddog> done. 18:36:57 <bdbaddog> sgk: sent. 18:37:08 <bdbaddog> though it says the invites won't be sent immediately. 18:37:30 <garyo> I guess I don't have any invites to give out :-( 18:37:34 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: Did u neeed one? 18:37:35 <GregNoel> Try inviting and see if it sends me one (eventually)... 18:37:37 <bdbaddog> I have 30 left. 18:37:54 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: added to invite list.. 18:37:58 <bdbaddog> 29 left. 18:38:19 <garyo> cool, this should be fun. we'll learn something anyway. 18:38:27 <bdbaddog> k. I'm outta here for tonight. will be interesting to see if wave is useful for this. 18:38:41 <garyo> yup, me too, have to find out who won in MA special election. 18:39:01 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: Let Steven and/or I know the dates you'll be up if you'd like to get together when you're up.. 18:39:22 <GregNoel> bdbaddog, wilco 18:39:03 <Jason_at_Intel> so have i been added? 18:39:07 * sgk gets a shoeshine while waiting for the invite to show up 18:39:47 <bdbaddog> Gnight all! 18:39:56 <sgk> bdbaddog: good night, thanx for the checkpoints 18:40:14 <Jason_at_Intel> bddaddog: night! 18:40:23 <garyo> see you folks on the ML... 18:40:26 * GregNoel has new mail... 18:41:18 <GregNoel> Hey, Rob is still around; he just corrected that spelling error 18:41:40 <garyo> GregNoel: good to know. 18:41:54 <garyo> anyway, time for bed I guess, here on the benighted east coast. 18:42:18 <garyo> take care folks, see you soon 18:42:25 <Jason_at_Intel> if you get a chance gary.. read that document :-) 18:42:25 * garyo ( has left #scons 18:42:46 <sgk> good night. Geaux Saints! 18:43:22 <Jason_at_Intel> Night all.. till next time 18:43:50 <GregNoel> No invitation... I'll keep an eye out. 18:43:51 * Jason_at_Intel has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]") 18:43:57 <GregNoel> G'night all. 18:46:39 * You have been marked as being away 18:49:33 * loonycyborg has quit ("Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz") 18:49:45 * sgk ( has left #scons 18:51:22 * bdbaddog ( has left #scons