Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-02-02

14:17:31 * techtonik (~chatzilla@2607:f298:2:107:230:48ff:fecb:9f0b) has joined #scons 16:51:27 * garyo ( has joined #scons 16:59:09 <garyo> hi folks 17:00:19 * Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@ has joined #scons 17:00:23 <GregNoel> Hi, guys... 17:00:31 <Jason_at_Intel> hello 17:01:04 * sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-efogesqhruhwxpwv) has joined #scons 17:01:25 <Jason_at_Intel> Hello Steve! 17:01:31 <sgk> hey Jason_at_intel 17:01:33 <sgk> hi GregNoel 17:01:37 <GregNoel> hi 17:01:38 <sgk> who else is here? 17:01:41 <GregNoel> garyo 17:05:39 <GregNoel> Are we ready? 1910 is first. 17:07:01 <GregNoel> I agree with Gary's comment; should we make that the consensus? 17:06:48 <garyo> Looks like 1910 is Steven's if he has a patch to start on it with 17:07:53 <sgk> yeah, i consider it a definite bug 17:08:16 <sgk> this is one of a bunch of issues where i have half-finished stabs at fixes 17:08:21 <sgk> or at least additional investigation 17:08:26 <sgk> sitting in various working directories 17:08:21 <GregNoel> I like the approach of creating a test and then implementing to suit... Good practice. 17:08:40 <sgk> i have a test case, and most of a fix, but additional tests break 17:08:38 <garyo> ok, you rough it out & put the code in the ticket? 17:08:54 <sgk> right, when i hand these back 17:08:59 <GregNoel> Put that in the issue and assign to Gary? 17:09:24 <sgk> sure 17:09:17 <garyo> sure, as long as it's 2.x. I won't get to it in the next few weeks. 17:09:07 <sgk> i should at least pack up my in-progress work and attach a patch 17:09:19 <sgk> if i haven't time to polish it off myself 17:09:39 <sgk> and maybe i get to it sooner, but at least the progress gets recorded to help whoever gets there first 17:09:46 <garyo> good plan. 17:09:52 <GregNoel> ok, I'll leave it to sgk to assign, as soon as he's added the info 17:09:58 <sgk> will do 17:09:58 <sgk> done 17:10:01 <GregNoel> done 17:10:12 <GregNoel> 2361 consensus 17:10:15 <sgk> done 17:10:20 <GregNoel> 780 17:10:42 <garyo> Could be a warning flag, on by default, but tests turn it off? 17:10:43 <sgk> similar to 1910, i'll upload a partial-fix patch and document what tests fail 17:10:52 <sgk> probably should fix the unit tests 17:11:01 <sgk> but some of the end-to-end tests fail, too, in ways that I haven't triaged 17:10:58 <garyo> ok, makes sense. 17:11:09 <GregNoel> works for me; where should it be scheduled? 17:11:20 <garyo> 2.x p4 17:11:37 <sgk> i like garyo's p4 suggestion, i thought perhaps 2.x just so it's not hanging too long 17:11:48 <GregNoel> done; I'll also let sgk schedule it when he adds the patch. 17:11:55 <sgk> roger that 17:12:20 <GregNoel> 1187: consensus 17:12:34 <GregNoel> 1745 17:12:53 <sgk> is +VS sufficient by itself? 17:13:01 <sgk> this one might also be +Easy 17:13:11 <garyo> certainly should be! 17:13:20 <GregNoel> if one is to believe the VS schedule, it should be 1.3. 17:13:22 <garyo> I think also 2.x 17:13:34 <sgk> it's not a regression, so I'm okay with post 1.3 17:13:39 <garyo> Agreed. 17:13:52 <GregNoel> OK, but 2.1 surely... 17:13:59 <sgk> yes, 2.1 17:14:02 <garyo> It's an enhancement. I could go w/ 2.1. 17:14:06 <GregNoel> garyo? 17:14:11 <garyo> ok 17:14:13 <GregNoel> done 17:14:33 <GregNoel> 1883, no opinion 17:14:40 <garyo> 1883: do we have a ticket for integrating the new windows installer? 17:14:51 <GregNoel> er, no idea... 17:14:56 <GregNoel> we should... 17:14:57 <sgk> we should 17:14:59 <sgk> jijnx 17:15:01 <GregNoel> jinx 17:15:01 <sgk> jinx 17:15:05 <sgk> jinx! 17:15:17 <GregNoel> what's a double jinx? 17:15:25 <sgk> metajinx! 17:15:17 <garyo> OK, so I say make a ticket for that (2.1 p2) and close this as a dup of that. 17:15:40 <GregNoel> OK, who should own the integration ticket? 17:16:23 <GregNoel> (sudden silence) 17:16:36 <garyo> Lukas, I think. 17:16:48 <garyo> And I'll help since I'm his mentor. 17:17:01 <GregNoel> Works; do you know his Tigris ID? 17:17:33 <garyo> not off the top of my head. Last name is Erlinghagen. 17:17:35 <GregNoel> I'll make you QA 17:17:42 <sgk> good plan 17:17:43 <garyo> great idea 17:17:47 <GregNoel> done 17:18:08 <GregNoel> 1945, a lot of options 17:18:45 <sgk> how about #1? least work now, so not much lost effort if --implicit-cache goes away 17:18:48 * loonycyborg is really pestered by 17:19:44 <GregNoel> loonycyborg, is that related to 1945? 17:20:55 <loonycyborg> GregNoel: No. Probably. 17:21:20 <GregNoel> loonycyborg, hang on then; we'll look at it next. 17:19:46 <garyo> I'd be OK w/ that, but anything that removes spurious stuff from the .sconsign is good in by book (which means I slightly prefer #3) 17:20:07 <sgk> agreed, #3 is conceptually more attractive 17:20:34 <sgk> (heads up: i'll have a short break in ~5 minutes when i board the shuttle) 17:20:35 <garyo> Anyway 1945 2.x p2 Ludwig? 17:20:53 <sgk> the sounds good to me 17:21:00 <GregNoel> OK, someone as QA? 17:21:08 <sgk> probably me 17:21:52 <GregNoel> Done, 2.x p2 Ludwig w/ Steven as QA 17:22:22 <sgk> 2096: consensus 17:22:22 <GregNoel> 2443? It's assigned to Gary 17:22:30 <sgk> oh, sorry, we were going to look at 2443 17:22:34 <garyo> 2443 is scheduled for me to do in the 2.1 timeframe. 17:22:55 <GregNoel> so, supposedly two or three months out 17:23:03 * sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 17:23:07 <Jason_at_Intel> is this a regression? 17:23:18 <garyo> I don't remember the details but it didn't seem terribly difficult, either omit the bad kw or handle it... 17:24:00 <loonycyborg> It's definitely a regression. 17:24:21 * sgk (~sgk@ has joined #scons 17:24:36 <sgk> ...and we're back 17:24:46 <garyo> Unfortunately 3883 is a merge changeset. Probably really r3820. 17:24:51 <Jason_at_Intel> I generally of the opinion regression have to be fixed quick if possible 17:24:59 <GregNoel> Looking at it, the problem may be a call to an internal function in that's changed... 17:25:43 <garyo> Russel, can you submit a patch? 17:26:02 <GregNoel> Russel's not here? 17:26:26 <GregNoel> Do you mean Sergey? 17:26:45 <garyo> Sorry yes! 17:28:18 <GregNoel> loonycyborg, we lose you? 17:30:55 <loonycyborg> GregNoel: No. 17:27:22 <garyo> I'm looking at the old chat log and Steven thought line 699 of was OK (according to Greg) but it looked buggy to me. 17:28:41 <garyo> I think Steven and I should look at it off list and decide. If it's a regression we may be able to squeeze it in, esp. if we are putting out another 1.3 checkpoint which I think we need to. 17:29:01 <GregNoel> (I hope we have time to discuss that later) 17:29:22 <sgk> agreed re: another 1.3 checkpoint 17:29:43 <sgk> if we gave our releases code words we should name this one "zombie" since it won't die 17:29:52 <garyo> :-/ 17:29:57 <Jason_at_Intel> :-) 17:30:02 <GregNoel> (I agree as well; I'm wondering if we should put in the deferred changesets.) 17:30:12 <sgk> at this point, probably 17:30:15 <garyo> I'm thinking the same thing. 17:30:37 <garyo> Anyway, 2443? Omit the executor there, or handle it in subst_list? 17:28:57 <sgk> aha 17:29:04 <sgk> i think i see the problem 17:30:48 <sgk> handle it in subst_list() 17:30:58 <garyo> ok, I'll do that. 17:30:56 <sgk> it's being handled in Environment.subst_list() correctly 17:31:13 <sgk> but not in the NoSubstitutionProxy that handles the default environment case 17:31:19 <garyo> (right, just handle it all the way down) 17:31:18 <sgk> that's where the problem is 17:31:36 <garyo> ok, got it. 17:31:39 <loonycyborg> I hacked around it in my install, but it's probably not good idea to submit my hack. 17:31:45 <GregNoel> OK, do we need to reschedule the issue? 17:32:06 <sgk> put my name on 2443 so it's on my radar screen 17:32:09 <garyo> loonycyborg: I think we have a handle on it now. Yes, let's do it for 1.3 unless it gets more complicated than I think. 17:32:10 <sgk> p1 due to the regression? 17:32:16 <garyo> ok w/ me. 17:32:25 <sgk> and... 1.3? 17:32:50 <GregNoel> done; I'll assign it to Gary with Steven as QA 17:33:29 <loonycyborg> garyo: It's good to know it's going to be fixed before 1.3 17:33:44 <garyo> will do my best :-) 17:32:27 <techtonik> GregNoel: I am here, but not completely sure - it is 3 am. and I feel like being partially somewhere else. =) 17:32:38 <techtonik> hello 17:32:56 <GregNoel> techtonik, message above 17:32:58 * sgk has decided that techtonik is his new hero 17:32:58 <garyo> Hi techtonik 17:33:28 <GregNoel> It must be pushing 5am for Sergey... 17:34:16 <garyo> ok, so onward... where were we? 17:34:24 <sgk> i think 2096? 17:34:38 <sgk> consensus 2.x p3 +sconf_revamp there 17:34:39 <garyo> right, consensus. 17:34:37 <GregNoel> yes, done 17:34:57 <GregNoel> 2249 consensus but needs a priority 17:35:19 <sgk> 2249: p3 17:35:25 <garyo> no more than p3 17:35:35 <sgk> i could be talked into p2 17:36:03 <garyo> p3 or p4 for me. 17:36:12 <garyo> let's do p3. 17:36:19 <sgk> p3 then 17:36:17 <GregNoel> p3 looks like consensus; done 17:36:35 <sgk> 2304 17:36:35 <GregNoel> 2304 17:36:39 <GregNoel> jinx 17:36:45 <garyo> this is already assigned to Jason. 17:37:15 <GregNoel> 2304: Jason was supposed to research this issue to see if a code fragment from Parts could deal with the problem. 17:36:49 <Jason_at_Intel> still working on two fixes for it 17:36:55 <sgk> ah, okay 17:37:12 <sgk> then why deferred to this week...? jus to revisit it for status? 17:37:24 <Jason_at_Intel> actually is there a reason why we could not make all file precious by default? 17:37:45 <GregNoel> Backward compatibility? 17:37:56 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: boy, that would break a bunch of things 17:38:14 <sgk> especially all the uses of env.Command() for one-off scripts 17:38:00 <Jason_at_Intel> 1 good reason 17:38:00 <garyo> Windows can't overwrite a file in ues. 17:38:08 <Jason_at_Intel> well i have that fixed 17:38:17 <Jason_at_Intel> however fdopen break the stack trace 17:38:26 <Jason_at_Intel> working on work around to that 17:39:05 <sgk> well, i'll never say never, so we can take a look if you think you have a really good solution 17:39:07 <garyo> I think this bug should be treated narrowly: just fail the build and go back to the interactive loop. 17:39:16 <Jason_at_Intel> or we catch the unlink actions in the node and don't error 17:39:34 <sgk> agree w/garyo 17:40:29 <GregNoel> Returning to the interactive loop covers my basic objection 17:39:52 <sgk> i was going to just have it not make --interactive bomb out 17:40:22 <sgk> not try to have it actually replace the in-use binary if the underlying OS doesn't normally allow it 17:40:17 <garyo> right, catch whatever's happening and reset the world as much as possible. 17:40:28 <Jason_at_Intel> so best case I will having this like linux.. worse.. we catch and excetion 17:41:09 <garyo> Jason: I wouldn't recommend even trying to overwrite a running file; Windows users don't expect it. 17:41:17 <garyo> (even if you could make it work) 17:41:18 <Jason_at_Intel> well I will have a patch in about a week I think 17:41:35 <sgk> okay, send it out for review when you think it's ready 17:41:36 <sgk> thnx 17:41:44 <GregNoel> Schedule it for 2.1 p? Jason? 17:41:44 <garyo> OK, sounds good -- shall we revisit the bug at the next party and review the patch? 17:41:57 <garyo> 2.1 p3 jason? 17:41:58 <sgk> 2.1 p[23] Jason 17:42:00 <Jason_at_Intel> Sounds good 17:42:39 <GregNoel> 2.1 p3 looks like the consensus; done 17:43:09 <GregNoel> 2536 17:44:03 <garyo> 2536: leave open til Cem gets a tigris acct, then assign to him 17:44:31 <GregNoel> that's done; the question is the policy in case he can't continue with it. 17:45:13 <garyo> Greg: if no one champions a SEP it has to lie fallow or die. 17:45:20 <garyo> (IMHO) 17:45:35 <GregNoel> Well, I think it's a good idea, but I'm going to be in surgery 17:46:05 <garyo> I think it's fine too, but we have way more good ideas than implementors right now 17:46:30 <GregNoel> Sigh. OK, if he can't continue, back to issues@scons. 17:46:04 <sgk> we should probably have a timetable 17:46:32 <sgk> N months without sponsor activity => remove assignee, probably announce that it needs a new owner 17:46:37 <sgk> N more months => close it as abandoned 17:47:12 <garyo> Sensible, but maybe with so few of them we can just be ad hoc about it for now? 17:47:06 <GregNoel> Values for N (and should the latter be M?)? 17:47:26 <sgk> 3 and 6, or 3 and 9 ? 17:47:39 <sgk> latter gives it a whole year before declaring it really dead 17:47:44 <GregNoel> 3 and 9 is a year... 17:47:53 <garyo> a whole year = time to release 1.3 :-/ 17:48:02 <GregNoel> ;-{ 17:48:13 <sgk> right, depends on whether we want to shade it towards accomodatingly leaving it open 17:48:23 <sgk> or trying to prod things along 17:48:36 <garyo> how about 6 + 9? 17:48:45 <sgk> i'm okay with either approach, so long as we decide and communicate 17:48:45 <garyo> I know I'm easygoing 17:49:21 <GregNoel> OK, let's take this to email; lots more to do 17:49:28 <garyo> right. 17:49:40 <GregNoel> 2539 17:49:49 <GregNoel> consensus 17:50:04 <garyo> yup 17:50:14 <GregNoel> 2541, do we have consensus? 17:50:48 <Jason_at_Intel> add quotes 17:50:54 <sgk> 2.1 p2 sk okay with you guys? 17:51:02 <GregNoel> works for me 17:51:09 <garyo> yes. 17:51:12 <sgk> done 17:51:14 <GregNoel> done 17:51:26 <GregNoel> 2542 consensus 17:51:43 <GregNoel> 2545 consensus 17:51:51 <GregNoel> 2549 17:52:08 <sgk> consensus, too, looks like 17:52:29 <garyo> I think +Easy w/ invite to Russel is OK. 17:52:54 <GregNoel> 2549: It's not +Easy; the logic must detect which library is available and provide the correct flag. That's less trivial. 17:54:44 <GregNoel> It becomes a configuration problem; check for which library is present and set the right flag. 17:52:49 <sgk> any reason not to just assign to Russel? 17:52:58 <sgk> he can give it back if he really objects 17:53:13 <GregNoel> I don't think he's a Python coder. 17:53:30 <sgk> ah 17:53:38 <sgk> that would be a problem, then... 17:54:24 <garyo> Can we at least ask him for more details as to what it needs to do? We don't have a clue. 17:54:39 <sgk> that sounds like the right next step, back to OP for clarification 17:54:41 <garyo> (Where it should look, whether it can always use phobos2, etc.) 17:55:05 <garyo> Maybe DMD has a -use-lib-if-present flag :-) 17:55:26 <GregNoel> ;-} that would be too easy 17:57:08 <GregNoel> 2549, consensus to reflect back to Russel for clarification? 17:57:17 <sgk> 2549: yes 17:57:20 <garyo> 2549: yes. 17:57:28 <GregNoel> 2549, done 17:54:42 <techtonik> Is the spreadsheet automatically syncronized? 17:55:33 <garyo> techtonik: Greg does it manually, he's our hero. 17:56:36 <GregNoel> techtonik, if you mean synchronized between multiple updaters, yes 17:57:11 <sgk> techtonik: but it's not automatically synchronized with the database 17:58:42 <techtonik> I would add issue autolinking given write access to the spreadsheet. 17:59:35 <GregNoel> techtonik, I could never get it to work 17:59:42 <garyo> techtonik: follow the instructions in and you'll get write access I think 17:56:18 <garyo> 2550: no idea 17:56:48 <sgk> 2550: research sk 17:56:53 <sgk> +Java 17:57:55 <GregNoel> 2550, what priority? 17:58:09 <garyo> research. 17:58:16 <sgk> p3 17:58:24 <GregNoel> done 17:58:34 <GregNoel> 2551 17:58:39 <sgk> doc p4 sk? 17:59:14 <GregNoel> 2551, 1.3? 17:59:31 <sgk> sure 17:59:45 <GregNoel> 2551, done 18:00:01 <GregNoel> 2552 18:00:54 <garyo> ask OP for patch, then reassign 18:01:13 <garyo> I can ask him. 18:01:32 <GregNoel> done; I'll assign it to you 18:01:58 <GregNoel> 2553 18:02:11 <sgk> same? 18:02:29 <garyo> related to 2552. I'll take it, and ask him if he'll work on it. 18:02:33 <sgk> thnx 18:02:38 <GregNoel> done 18:02:56 <GregNoel> 2554 18:03:04 <sgk> 2554 and 2555: both related to CHANGED_TARGETS, give them to me 18:03:15 <sgk> 2.x p3 18:03:27 <GregNoel> done; tks 18:03:37 <garyo> thanks! 18:03:50 <sgk> 2556: thnx for sending back to OP 18:03:51 <GregNoel> 2556, no test case; close as invalid? 18:04:09 <sgk> yeah 18:04:17 <sgk> invite re-opening w/test case, blah blah blah 18:04:30 <garyo> ok, I guess. 18:04:18 <GregNoel> done 18:04:29 <GregNoel> On to new issues! 18:04:45 <garyo> I will have to go soon, 10 min 18:04:58 <GregNoel> three more... 18:05:05 <GregNoel> 2558 18:05:20 <sgk> consensus back to OP? 18:05:21 <GregNoel> Back to OP to revise patch? 18:05:32 <GregNoel> sorta jinx? 18:05:48 <garyo> Greg's comment is right. 18:05:54 <garyo> back to OP to use SideEffect. 18:06:12 <garyo> (and say we'll integrate it at that point, to be nice) 18:06:03 <GregNoel> done; review next time. 18:06:21 <sgk> 2559: research SK 18:06:24 <Jason_at_Intel> 2559, I have a patch work around for this in Parts by overriding Clone. This was a real problem with our builds... 18:06:48 <sgk> er, i meant, 2559: research Jason_at_Intel 18:06:55 <sgk> :-) 18:07:05 <Jason_at_Intel> well I think code review it when we get there :-) 18:07:21 <garyo> Works for me. 18:07:27 <sgk> me too 18:07:34 <GregNoel> what priority? 18:07:42 <sgk> p2? 18:07:55 <garyo> ok, or p3 18:07:59 <sgk> (5-10 minutes to buh-bye) 18:08:05 <garyo> ditto 18:08:05 <GregNoel> We probably can't get it in before 2.1, so p2 or p3 should be fine 18:08:17 <sgk> p3 then 18:08:22 <GregNoel> done 18:08:24 <GregNoel> last one 18:08:29 <garyo> 2561: I can take this, for 2.1 or 2.x. 18:08:29 <GregNoel> 2561 18:08:34 <sgk> awesome 18:10:40 <GregNoel> what priority for 2561? 18:11:12 <garyo> 2561: enhancement, p3? 18:08:42 <techtonik> Web site bugs doesn't seem to get into spreadsheet. 18:08:59 <garyo> good point. 18:09:12 <garyo> do you have a favorite? 18:09:14 <garyo> :-) 18:09:15 <GregNoel> Yeah, that's an oversight: 2560 is a website bug. 18:10:18 <garyo> Yeah, that's a good idea in 2560. I should do that, or maybe Bill? 18:10:29 <garyo> (Bill's done more than his share recently) 18:10:35 <garyo> so give it to me. 18:10:56 <GregNoel> 2560, it already is 18:11:16 <GregNoel> You're the default assignee. 18:11:11 <techtonik> I can help with cleaning up the site. 18:11:28 <garyo> techtonik: I'll email you then and show you around! 18:11:35 <sgk> techtonik++ 18:11:37 <techtonik> For example 18:12:14 <garyo> yes, that one too would be great. 18:12:55 <garyo> I'll email you the info in the next day or so, ping me if you don't hear from me; I get ridiculously busy sometimes. 18:13:14 <techtonik> garyo: np 18:12:30 <GregNoel> Web site bugs aren't tied to release schedule; only "research" is possible, I think 18:13:12 <garyo> Greg: that's OK, we don't get that many of them. 18:13:27 <garyo> Sometimes people just email which goes to me too. 18:13:53 <techtonik> What is this "research" - do if a time permits? 18:14:18 <GregNoel> techtonik, "figure out the problem and fix it" 18:14:19 <garyo> research = look into it and decide how hard it is, what's really going on. Goal is to re-triage after researching. 18:15:26 <GregNoel> techtonik, unfortunately we only have "unassigned" and "research" for web issues; we've never needed more. 18:14:19 <techtonik> Or, let me check one bug.. 18:13:54 <GregNoel> OK, that's it! Anything to say about 1.3 in the 30 seconds left? 18:14:50 <garyo> 1.3: need another ckpoint but need to pin down behavior re: no VC installed or broken. 18:15:19 <garyo> Need to do our best given the limits of existing toolchain, but not go overboard. 18:15:41 <sgk> garyo: any opinions on the bdbaddog / cournapeau discussion? 18:15:42 <garyo> I want to talk it over w/ bdbaddog too, he's in the trenches on this. 18:16:09 <garyo> sgk: I think I do have opinions but I need to reread the discussion. 18:16:43 <garyo> sgk: basically I'm OK w/ ignoring bat file failures most of the time, but not if it was explicitly selected. 18:16:59 <sgk> that makes sense 18:15:47 <techtonik> This one should be fixed before 1.3 18:16:35 <techtonik> Many frameworks are installed via easy_install, especially in virtualenv. 18:17:15 <sgk> (1 minute) 18:17:33 <garyo> techtonik: doubt we can do that for 1.3. It's closed for everything but regressions... 18:17:44 <sgk> techtonik: so basically we just need to add an additional dir to sys.path to make it work? 18:17:53 <techtonik> sgk: exactly 18:18:02 <sgk> if that's all, i can look at that for the next 1.3 checkpoint 18:18:05 <garyo> hm, is it that easy? 18:18:13 <sgk> 1.3 p1 sk 18:18:20 <garyo> if so and it's low risk I'd be OK. 18:18:22 <techtonik> I have a patch for windows batch. 18:18:31 <sgk> gotta run, send me any more info 18:18:35 * sgk (~sgk@ has left #scons 18:18:35 <garyo> sk: thanks! 18:18:57 <garyo> I have to go too... see you folks in a couple of weeks. We'll plan the 1.3 ckpt on the ML. 18:19:03 <GregNoel> OK, thanks all; cul... 18:19:06 <garyo> ciao 18:19:10 * garyo ( has left #scons 18:19:15 <Jason_at_Intel> later! 18:19:27 * Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]) 18:19:49 <techtonik> That was too fast. I probably need to subscribe to dev after all. 18:42:19 * loonycyborg has quit (Quit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) 19:28:34 * techtonik has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)