Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-02-02

The SCons wiki has moved to

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@](mailto:chatzilla@ has joined #scons 
17:00:23  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel) 
17:01:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     hi 
17:01:38  <sgk>  who else is here? 
17:01:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo 
17:05:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Are we ready?  1910 is first. 
17:07:01  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     done 
17:10:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2361 consensus 
17:10:15  <sgk>  done 
17:10:20  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     done; I'll also let sgk schedule it when he adds the patch. 
17:11:55  <sgk>  roger that 
17:12:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1187: consensus 
17:12:34  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     garyo? 
17:14:11  <garyo>        ok 
17:14:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:14:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1883, no opinion 
17:14:40  <garyo>        1883: do we have a ticket for integrating the new windows installer? 
17:14:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, no idea... 
17:14:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     we should... 
17:14:57  <sgk>  we should 
17:14:59  <sgk>  jijnx 
17:15:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     jinx 
17:15:01  <sgk>  jinx 
17:15:05  <sgk>  jinx! 
17:15:17  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     OK, who should own the integration ticket? 
17:16:23  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     I'll make you QA 
17:17:42  <sgk>  good plan 
17:17:43  <garyo>        great idea 
17:17:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:18:08  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, is that related to 1945? 
17:20:55  <loonycyborg>  [GregNoel](GregNoel): No. Probably. 
17:21:20  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     OK, someone as QA? 
17:21:08  <sgk>  probably me 
17:21:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Done, 2.x p2 Ludwig w/ Steven as QA 
17:22:22  <sgk>  2096: consensus 
17:22:22  <[GregNoel](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](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@](mailto: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](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](GregNoel)>     Russel's not here? 
17:26:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Do you mean Sergey? 
17:26:45  <garyo>        Sorry yes! 
17:28:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     loonycyborg, we lose you? 
17:30:55  <loonycyborg>  [GregNoel](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](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](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](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](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](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     yes, done 
17:34:57  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     p3 looks like consensus; done 
17:36:35  <sgk>  2304 
17:36:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2304 
17:36:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     jinx 
17:36:45  <garyo>        this is already assigned to Jason. 
17:37:15  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     2.1 p3 looks like the consensus; done 
17:43:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2536 
17:44:03  <garyo>        2536: leave open til Cem gets a tigris acct, then assign to him 
17:44:31  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     3 and 9 is a year... 
17:47:53  <garyo>        a whole year = time to release 1.3 :-/ 
17:48:02  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     OK, let's take this to email; lots more to do 
17:49:28  <garyo>        right. 
17:49:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2539 
17:49:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     consensus 
17:50:04  <garyo>        yup 
17:50:14  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     works for me 
17:51:09  <garyo>        yes. 
17:51:12  <sgk>  done 
17:51:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:51:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2542 consensus 
17:51:43  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2545 consensus 
17:51:51  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     ;-} that would be too easy 
17:57:08  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     2550, what priority? 
17:58:09  <garyo>        research. 
17:58:16  <sgk>  p3 
17:58:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:58:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2551 
17:58:39  <sgk>  doc p4 sk? 
17:59:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2551, 1.3? 
17:59:31  <sgk>  sure 
17:59:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2551, done 
18:00:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2552 
18:00:54  <garyo>        ask OP for patch, then reassign 
18:01:13  <garyo>        I can ask him. 
18:01:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; I'll assign it to you 
18:01:58  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     done 
18:02:56  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     done; tks 
18:03:37  <garyo>        thanks! 
18:03:50  <sgk>  2556:  thnx for sending back to OP 
18:03:51  <[GregNoel](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](GregNoel)>     done 
18:04:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     On to new issues! 
18:04:45  <garyo>        I will have to go soon, 10 min 
18:04:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     three more... 
18:05:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2558 
18:05:20  <sgk>  consensus back to OP? 
18:05:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Back to OP to revise patch? 
18:05:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sorta jinx? 
18:05:48  <garyo>        Greg's comment is right. 
18:05:54  <garyo>        back to OP to use [SideEffect](SideEffect). 
18:06:12  <garyo>        (and say we'll integrate it at that point, to be nice) 
18:06:03  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](GregNoel)>     done 
18:08:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     last one 
18:08:29  <garyo>        2561: I can take this, for 2.1 or 2.x. 
18:08:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2561 
18:08:34  <sgk>  awesome 
18:10:40  <[GregNoel](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](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](GregNoel)>     2560, it already is 
18:11:16  <[GregNoel](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](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](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](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](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@](mailto: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](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](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)