Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-04-27

The SCons wiki has moved to

16:35:36  *      Jason_at_Intel (~[chatzilla@](mailto:chatzilla@ has joined #SCONS 
16:54:01  *      garyo (~[]( has joined #SCONS 
16:54:41  *      bdbaddog (~[]( has joined #SCONS 
16:58:10  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is here and getting set up, another couple of minutes... 
16:58:26  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-vtdxqwybqnmycvwp) has joined #SCONS 
16:58:28  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away 
16:59:36  <garyo>        All, Jason & I've been having some toolchain discussions offline.  Hopefully I can write something up and/or Jason can implement something around it soon... based around iapat ideas mostly. 
17:01:23  <garyo>        OK, shall we dive into the bug list? 
17:01:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, everybody...  Looks like a quorum, shall we start? 
17:01:41  <sgk>  sure, any sign of greg yet?  (he just leaves himself logged in usually) 
17:01:48  <sgk>  oh, there you are 
17:01:49  <sgk>  ! 
17:01:50  <garyo>        He's really here 
17:01:55  <sgk>  cool 
17:02:00  <Jason_at_Intel>       he needed a minutes to setup 
17:02:08  <sgk>  let's go then 
17:02:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2581 
17:02:48  <garyo>        Seems like there's not a lot we can do about that in the near term, right? 
17:02:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     concur 
17:02:58  <sgk>  i don't think it's a quick fix 
17:03:03  <sgk>  so post-2.2, probably 
17:03:16  <Jason_at_Intel>       agreeded 
17:03:34  <garyo>        2.x p3 sk then? (With option to punt further if needed) 
17:03:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm even inclined to say it's post 2.x 
17:03:40  <sgk>  2.x p4?  i'm pretty sure re-ordering the lines is a valid workaround, lousy though that is 
17:03:50  <garyo>        sgk: my thought too. 
17:04:15  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll go along, even though 2.x is overfull 
17:04:30  <garyo>        p4 makes it puntable 
17:04:38  <sgk>  wouldn't surprise me if all 2.x p4 get pushed out when we re-evaluate them 
17:04:55  <sgk>  but it at least makes sure we take a look when it comes time to reprioritize 
17:04:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, 2.x p4 sk 
17:05:05  <sgk>  done 
17:05:06  <garyo>        good 
17:05:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2609 
17:05:29  <garyo>        no response yet, defer 
17:05:34  <sgk>  agree 
17:05:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Are we still waiting for more info? 
17:05:42  <sgk>  i think so, yes 
17:05:45  <garyo>        Yes, I asked on 4/17 
17:05:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ten days... 
17:05:55  <garyo>        maybe it's too long to wait? 
17:06:29  <garyo>        I'm sure there's some user error in there that maybe we could catch, but without the OP we can't do anything. 
17:06:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     kick him again, then close next time? 
17:06:30  <sgk>  if we want to be super-nice, update it with a note re: we'll close it at the next bug party 
17:06:39  <garyo>        agreed. 
17:06:41  <sgk>  yes 
17:06:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:07:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1610 
17:07:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     oops, 2610 
17:07:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I don't know where this file is read, but would universal newlines help? 
17:07:36  <sgk>  evil cygwin 
17:07:40  <sgk>  evil, evil, evil cygwin 
17:07:49  <bdbaddog>     oh please. it's not that bad. 
17:07:56  <sgk>  :-) 
17:08:03  <garyo>        I use cygwin all the time. 
17:08:06  <bdbaddog>     Ditto. 
17:08:12  <sgk>  as a user, it's great 
17:08:13  <bdbaddog>     for years and years and years. 
17:08:14  <garyo>        It's dos that's evil in the first place. 
17:08:24  <bdbaddog>     many x-platform build systems with it too. 
17:08:30  <sgk>  trying to develop for the cross-product of non-cygwin x cygwin?  another thing altogether 
17:08:36  <garyo>        anyway, I have no idea where to even start on this one.  Where's that file list coming from? 
17:08:51  <sgk>  right, i'm not sure myself 
17:08:54  <garyo>        and where is scons parsing it? 
17:09:23  <sgk>  we usually generate those, not pick them up from a file 
17:09:29  <garyo>        I guess we look stupid if we ask the OP for this info.  Who wrote the swig builder? 
17:09:44  <sgk>  probably me, long ago enough to have forgotten the details 
17:09:52  <sgk>  i think we probably slap my name on it by default 
17:10:08  <sgk>  and there's this guy who just popped up on the ML with an itch to work on Java 
17:10:11  <sgk>  with Russel Winder 
17:10:14  <garyo>        It's probably a trivial fix once the right place is found... 
17:10:31  <garyo>        sgk: this one might be a good one for him to start with. 
17:10:36  <sgk>  sure 
17:10:48  <sgk>  i'll take a quick look to see if it's obvious after a little digging 
17:10:51  <garyo>        can you suggest it to him, with a hint or two to get him started? 
17:11:00  <garyo>        (or what you said of course) 
17:10:56  <sgk>  right 
17:11:21  <sgk>  and contact him+Russel re: starting in earnest on refactoring Java support 
17:11:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     How should the issue be handled? 
17:11:48  <sgk>  so... -research- sk (for now) 
17:11:57  <garyo>        That sounds good. 
17:12:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     priority? 
17:12:12  <garyo>        p4, only one person 
17:12:30  <sgk>  sounds good 
17:12:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, done 
17:12:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2572 
17:12:49  <garyo>        invalid I think 
17:12:53  <sgk>  agreed 
17:12:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     consensus 
17:12:58  <sgk>  done 
17:13:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2576, consensus 
17:13:20  <garyo>        2582, i closed 
17:13:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2587, garyo +1 
17:13:26  <garyo>        sorry 2587 
17:13:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2588 
17:13:39  <sgk>  yes, garyo +1 
17:13:39  <Jason_at_Intel>       already closed? 
17:14:02  <garyo>        yes 
17:14:11  <garyo>        sorry, not 2588 
17:14:21  <sgk>  right, 2587 already closed 
17:14:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2588 
17:14:52  <sgk>  2588:  2.x p3 +Easy ? 
17:15:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm... 
17:15:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, I can go with that. 
17:15:17  <garyo>        sgk: ok, but I want a testcase first if you're ok w/ that 
17:15:25  <sgk>  testcase++ 
17:15:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     agree w/testcase 
17:15:49  <garyo>        so we wait for yann to give us a testcase, then it's 2.x p3 +Easy. 
17:15:52  <sgk>  garyo:  you mean, contact the OP for a testcase? 
17:15:55  <sgk>  yeah 
17:15:57  <garyo>        I already did 
17:16:06  <sgk>  garyo++ again 
17:16:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ++ 
17:16:14  <garyo>        hmm, that was a long time ago now though 
17:16:19  <garyo>        I'll ping him again. 
17:16:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Put it on your plate for now? 
17:16:36  <garyo>        ok 
17:16:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     research p2? 
17:16:46  <garyo>        fine w/ me 
17:16:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:16:58  <sgk>  2589:  consensus invalid 
17:16:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2589 
17:17:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     consensus 
17:17:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2590 close garyo++ 
17:17:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2599 
17:18:09  <garyo>        Agree w/ Greg, we should do all this kind of thing in toolchain, but for now it's working as designed (though annoying) 
17:18:25  <garyo>        Mark as invalid, assume workaround worked. 
17:18:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Steven had some thoughts about doc? 
17:18:55  <sgk>  yeah, if our doc example uses a string, that's misleading 
17:19:09  <garyo>        it does, and it is. 
17:19:21  <garyo>        ok, mark as doc w/ a note to fix example? 
17:19:25  <sgk>  ++ 
17:19:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     who? 
17:19:29  <garyo>        for our new tech writer? :-) 
17:19:31  <Jason_at_Intel>       not sure.. I always use list.. no issues 
17:20:06  <sgk>  I raised the doc issue, i should probably own that 
17:20:16  <garyo>        Jason: you can also use Append() etc., they always work. 
17:20:28  <garyo>        just fyi. 
17:20:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     then when?  and priority? 
17:20:43  <Jason_at_Intel>       I mean when i set a var .. i use a list not CLvar 
17:20:51  <garyo>        list is fine too. 
17:20:59  <Jason_at_Intel>       I "don't get what value it has" 
17:21:12  <sgk>  (heads up:  2-3 minutes until I get on the shuttle, I'll drop a minute or two until I reconnect) 
17:21:21  <garyo>        sgk, 2.x, doc, p3? 
17:21:25  <sgk>  done 
17:21:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:21:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2600 
17:21:51  <sgk>  any reasons MAXLINELENGTH isn't the workaround he wants? 
17:22:13  <garyo>        I doubt his LINKCOM is using TEMPFILE, which is undocumented afaict 
17:22:34  <sgk>  :-( 
17:22:39  <Jason_at_Intel>       I agree 
17:22:59  <sgk>  back in a bit 
17:23:00  *      sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 
17:23:11  <garyo>        I think it's important to doc that.  I'll take it for 2.something, p3. 
17:23:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2.2? 
17:23:38  <garyo>        sounds good. 
17:23:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ok, done 
17:24:11  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 
17:23:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2601 
17:23:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     consensus 
17:24:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but needs milestone, priority 
17:24:11  <garyo>        sgk needs to be here to decide :-) 
17:24:31  <garyo>        I think 2.2 p3 
17:24:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm...  2.1, I think 
17:24:53  *      sgk (~[sgk@](mailto:sgk@ has joined #SCONS 
17:25:09  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:25:14  <garyo>        Hi Steven, 2601, documenting new cpp scanner: how about 2.1 p3 you? 
17:25:24  <sgk>  sold 
17:25:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:25:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2602 
17:26:26  <garyo>        I think we can close it; I tried to hook him into contributing because I think he cares about this stuff, maybe he'll respond. 
17:26:38  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  how reusable do you think your subprocess work in parts is? 
17:27:16  <Jason_at_Intel>       hmm.. I plan to tweak it a little more.. it is bound to a reporting API i have for coloring and logging as well 
17:27:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       but unhooking that would not be hard 
17:27:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I agree with Steven about identifying the big projects and at least listing them... 
17:27:41  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  let's see how much time we have after the bugs 
17:27:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, agree 
17:27:51  <sgk>  we could start by just brainstorming all the big things we know we'd like to do 
17:27:59  <sgk>  and maybe prioritize / roadmap them next time? 
17:28:16  <garyo>        ++ 
17:28:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     worksforme 
17:27:19  <sgk>  I'm okay with closing 2602 in the meantime 
17:27:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     invalid it is 
17:28:37  <sgk>  okay, then close 2602, and add SPAWN refactoring to a roadmap discussion 
17:28:36  <garyo>        2604 seems like consensus 
17:28:59  <sgk>  2604:  rob is the man 
17:29:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2604, consensus 
17:29:12  <sgk>  2606:  2.x p3 sk 
17:29:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2606, if Steven is volunteering... 
17:29:45  <sgk>  yeah 
17:29:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:30:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2607 
17:30:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     consensus on toolchain 
17:30:28  <garyo>        yes 
17:30:31  <sgk>  yes 
17:30:36  <Jason_at_Intel>       yes 
17:30:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The rest of the toolchain issues are 3.x p3 
17:30:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (except one) 
17:31:03  <sgk>  and... that looks like it 
17:31:06  <sgk>  quick work tonight 
17:31:16  <garyo>        2608? 
17:31:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, 2608? 
17:31:45  <sgk>  ?  is that in the spreadsheet? 
17:31:53  <bdbaddog>     yes. progress #'s 
17:32:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     You even commented on it. 
17:32:14  <garyo>        sgk: if you want to take a crack at it I see how it could be useful.  I'd support that effort. 
17:32:23  <garyo>        we sure get asked for it a lot. 
17:32:27  <sgk>  okay, nm, i seem to have a shortened spreadhseet here 
17:32:32  *      sgk refreshes... 
17:32:40  <garyo>        damn google... :-) :-) 
17:33:11  <sgk>  no kidding... 
17:33:16  <sgk>  stupid chrome 
17:33:22  <sgk>  ah, there we go 
17:33:35  <sgk>  hey, did you guys know there are more issue farther down the spreadsheet...?  ::-) 
17:33:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, that's the last one. 
17:34:07  <garyo>        222 is the last line in mine 
17:34:17  <bdbaddog>     ditto 
17:34:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     220? 
17:34:25  <bdbaddog>     row # 
17:34:30  <Jason_at_Intel>       2608 is the last? 
17:34:33  <garyo>        yes. 
17:34:34  <sgk>  looks like 
17:34:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     oops, yep, 222 
17:34:46  *      sgk slinks off and stops making bad jokes 
17:34:46  <Jason_at_Intel>       oh 222 row 
17:33:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I like Gary's idea of a wiki page to figure out what we can do.  I'd contribute to that... 
17:35:18  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  do we have a keyword for TNG? 
17:35:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Uh, I think so; if not, it's easy to add. 
17:35:35  <Jason_at_Intel>       TNG? 
17:35:43  <sgk>  anything we do to the current infrastructure to support this is throwaway 
17:35:45  <garyo>        sgk: why not start by putting it on the wiki, and if people like it we add it with a descriptive name that shows it's approximate. 
17:35:59  <garyo>        tng=taskmaster next gen 
17:36:46  <Jason_at_Intel>       the next generation star trek goes across my mind everytime i see that 
17:36:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     [ApproximatePercentage](ApproximatePercentage) 
17:36:16  <garyo>        yeah, something like that 
17:36:27  <garyo>        but it needs to be a callback, let's not design it here. 
17:36:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     [ApproximatePercentageThatMayGoBackward](ApproximatePercentageThatMayGoBackward) 
17:36:44  <garyo>        :-) 
17:36:36  <sgk>  I'm not following you...  put it on the wiki?  you mean a discussion about whether people want this feature? 
17:37:00  <garyo>        sgk: no, put the code itself on the wiki for people to try. 
17:37:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, a discussion on how we can implement it, and how approximate the options would be. 
17:37:17  <garyo>        well, that was my original suggestion anyway. 
17:37:27  <sgk>  ulp.  what i had in mind would probably be pretty invasive 
17:37:46  <garyo>        invasive as in changes, or invasive as in using undocumented apis? 
17:37:54  <Jason_at_Intel>       any more so than the buildNow tool? 
17:37:54  <sgk>  i wasn't thinking about the walk-the-tree-once-to-count idea 
17:38:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No surprise, but invasive or not, it's not obvious what the tradeoffs are. 
17:38:03  <sgk>  buildNow tool? 
17:38:31  <sgk>  invasive as in I was thinking avoid the duplicate tree walk by counting Nodes as they're added 
17:38:32  <Jason_at_Intel>       I might have teh wrong name... but someone made a tool to build a target 
17:38:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       RIghtNow 
17:38:41  <Jason_at_Intel>       that was it i think 
17:38:56  <garyo>        never heard of it 
17:39:05  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  send me a pointer / link?  I haven't heard of that 
17:39:06  <Jason_at_Intel>       so it calls the taskmaster and stuff to build a target right then 
17:39:20  <garyo>        Hm, there it is in the wiki. Will have to check it out. 
17:39:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, yeah, but a LOT of nodes do nothing: rfile duplicates, ... 
17:39:31  <sgk>  wow, sounds only slightly less gnarly than the SConf stuff...  :-/ 
17:39:52  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  I'm doing a lot of hand-waving, yeah 
17:39:58  <Jason_at_Intel>       []( 
17:40:28  <sgk>  it just wouldn't be an easily-patchable, self-contained bit of code behind an if-test, say 
17:40:56  <Jason_at_Intel>       thought it would be useful to do something like this in Parts as well to speed up build times for large incremental builds 
17:41:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     What's wrong with "Execute()"? 
17:41:31  <sgk>  Execute() runs an action, no dependency checking 
17:41:55  <garyo>        right, and doesn't set the target as uptodate 
17:42:15  <Jason_at_Intel>       ideally i can read other Parts files while i start build leaf components 
17:42:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Um, what runs configure checks, then? 
17:42:36  <sgk>  heh.  that's pretty interesting 
17:42:54  <sgk>  bet he's not using Configure() at all 
17:43:12  <sgk>  Jason_at_intel:  are you using [RightNow](RightNow)() in Parts ? 
17:43:19  <Jason_at_Intel>       not yet 
17:43:33  <Jason_at_Intel>       I was thinking about it for the next drop 
17:44:06  <Jason_at_Intel>       not directly... but build it in to Parts ... 
17:44:18  <garyo>        [RightNow](RightNow) code isn't very big.  A page or less. 
17:44:29  <sgk>  it's pretty fresh, his initial (only) checkin was 17 March 
17:44:52  <Jason_at_Intel>       If i allow user to call right now .... the read phase would take forever 
17:45:16  <garyo>        anyway, sgk, this [ApproximatePercentageThatMightGoBackwards](ApproximatePercentageThatMightGoBackwards) sounds like an interesting bg task if you get to it, but maybe we can design TNG to make it easier? 
17:45:24  <Jason_at_Intel>       However it uses the internal code.. a don't know if this would bad for TNG 
17:45:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     In any event, we're drifting from the topic of issue 2608, the progress indicator. 
17:45:44  <Jason_at_Intel>       but suggests a dev level API woudl be a nice addition with TNG for doing stuff like this 
17:45:44  <sgk>  garyo:  yes, that's why i was asking about TNG 
17:46:10  <garyo>        yup, just agreeing w/ you and trying to return to the topic at hand. 
17:46:22  <sgk>  yeah 
17:46:44  <bdbaddog>     Hey so Did u guys see my email about the tech writer? 
17:46:51  <Jason_at_Intel>       so progress bar is an impl for people to try to invasive? 
17:47:13  <garyo>        I did -- look up a few hundred lines & I mentioned them :-) 
17:47:36  <bdbaddog>     yup. saw that. 
17:47:45  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  tech writer++ 
17:47:56  <sgk>  what would be a good next step to explore the fit w/her? 
17:48:01  <garyo>        Jason: too ugly for a wiki implementation, sgk may try it in the bg but no promises (did I get that right?) 
17:48:01  <bdbaddog>     any low haning fruit for her to take a wack at? and/or howto's she  should go through? 
17:48:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Steven, could you update the issue with what you think might be possible, now and TNG? 
17:48:25  <sgk>  garyo:  i agree 
17:48:36  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 greg 
17:48:37  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  yes, give it to me for updating 
17:48:39  <garyo>        Is she up for just fixing a few of the easy doc bugs (not the ones that require detailed impl knowledge)? 
17:48:46  <bdbaddog>     yes. 
17:49:01  <garyo>        That seems like a great start. 
17:49:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done, now we can go off-topic.  And think about starting a wiki page. 
17:49:18  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  let's you and I sync up off-line re: doc tasks 
17:49:22  <garyo>        wiki page for roadmap/projects? 
17:49:46  <bdbaddog>     sgk: sounds good. 
17:50:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I was still on wiki page for progress percent, but a wiki page for big projects would be a good thing, too. 
17:50:56  <sgk>  re: progress percent, sounds like that's on my plate, yes? 
17:50:56  <garyo>        Maybe sk's comments on 2608 form the basis of the wiki page, if we're lucky 
17:51:09  <sgk>  that's what i was thinking 
17:51:13  <garyo>        +1 
17:51:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And while everybody is throwing in topics, how about a 2.0 checkpoint?  I think it's ready. 
17:51:59  <sgk>  cool 
17:51:59  <garyo>        I can help w/ it this weekend, not before. 
17:52:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, yes progress percent is on your plate; I'll have to figure out how. 
17:52:15  <garyo>        (Well, I can start Fri night) 
17:52:43  <sgk>  fyi, i'll be out of town and probably mostly off-line this Thursday through next Tuesday 
17:53:19  <garyo>        No prob for the ckpoint; if it's terrible, we'll just take it down. :-) 
17:53:38  <garyo>        (Not that it would be of course.) 
17:53:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Well, I've got one more thing I can work on until Fri, so I guess we'll start then. 
17:53:46  <sgk>  of course! 
17:54:10  <bdbaddog>     are we ready for 2.0 checkpoint build? 
17:54:23  <sgk>  right, that's what [GregNoel](GregNoel) and garyo are discussing 
17:54:25  <garyo>        That's what Greg's saying, yes. 
17:54:51  <garyo>        Anyone actually tried it in real life yet? 
17:54:55  <bdbaddog>     ugh long day.. 
17:55:02  <garyo>        :-) 
17:55:24  <sgk>  not that i know of 
17:55:26  <bdbaddog>     I can do 1.3.1 checkpoint and 2.0 this week if you like. 
17:55:32  <garyo>        I'll try it on my Windows 7 box. 
17:55:53  <garyo>        bdbaddog: both?  I'll give you a hand of course! 
17:56:16  <bdbaddog>     yeah no problemo. 
17:56:23  <garyo>        awesome, you're on. 
17:56:40  <garyo>        I'll at least help w/ release announcement text etc. 
17:56:46  <bdbaddog>     i was starting on 1.3.1 ckpoint on sunday, ran out of steam. 
17:57:07  <bdbaddog>     Sure. That'd be great. We can coordinate via mail. 
17:57:15  <garyo>        perfect. 
17:57:45  <garyo>        So, project list? 
17:57:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     TNG 
17:58:03  <garyo>        subst 
17:58:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Toolchain 
17:58:13  <garyo>        GSoC windows installer 
17:58:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (is that a big project or just a merge?) 
17:58:35  <sgk>  Node refactor 
17:58:44  <garyo>        Greg: hopefully just merge 
17:59:05  <bdbaddog>     is the installer Wix or NSIS ? 
17:59:20  <garyo>        nsis if I remember correctly 
17:59:38  <bdbaddog>     INSTALLER: k. I have some experience with NSIS 
17:59:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, refactor what about Nodes? 
17:59:08  <Jason_at_Intel>       Nodes 
17:59:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       and API.. should be easier to use 
17:59:09  <sgk>  Node hierarchy 
17:59:20  <sgk>  use composition instead of inheritance 
17:59:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm...  sgk, interacts with TNG. 
17:59:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     probably minor, though... 
17:59:49  <sgk>  very possibly 
17:59:47  <bdbaddog>     How about switching tests to py.test ? 
17:59:58  <sgk>  componentization model / Parts integration 
18:00:08  <garyo>        tests as dirs 
18:00:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     expose test strings 
18:00:41  <garyo>        greg: what's that mean? 
18:00:46  <sgk>  yeah, tests as dirs + expose test strings + unittest 
18:00:57  <sgk>  it's a side effect of tests as dirs 
18:01:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Test strings go into directories. 
18:01:00  <garyo>        ok 
18:01:09  <sgk>  all the Python code that's in in-line strings get put into files 
18:01:11  <bdbaddog>     as files rather than strings in the test files. 
18:01:21  <sgk>  so the Python 3.x fixers can operate on them 
18:01:16  <garyo>        yah, got it. 
18:02:08  <garyo>        take many tools out of scons core, make them plug-ins 
18:01:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That's a pretty good list.  Someone want to start a wiki page? 
18:02:22  <garyo>        Greg: I'll start the page based on this list. 
18:02:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo++ 
18:02:57  <sgk>  right, most likely coordinating w/Russel Winder re: his ideas for separate Tool development 
18:03:17  <sgk>  oh, use a DVCS to front the SVN repository for devlopment? 
18:03:26  <garyo>        sgk: definitely.  And adding system site_scons dirs, all that stuff.  And interacts w/ toolchain too. 
18:03:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm not seeing any more brainstorming; shall we deem the list complete for now? 
18:03:42  <sgk>  complete enough 
18:03:45  <bdbaddog>     Yes! 
18:03:50  <garyo>        sgk: anyone can front svn with a dvcs today. 
18:03:57  <sgk>  send out a link, we can think and add more for two weeks 
18:04:06  <sgk>  and then put them in some rough priority order 
18:04:14  <garyo>        ok, will do.  SConsFutureProjects or something. 
18:04:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo, call it [BigProjects](BigProjects); we can start a separate page for Roadmap. 
18:04:44  <sgk>  true enough re: front-end development 
18:05:02  <garyo>        [BigProjects](BigProjects) it is. 
18:05:22  *      sgk has another 3 minutes or so 
18:05:26  <Jason_at_Intel>       I can use Bazaar with SCOns and Parts... but i can't use it at work ( crashes) ( same with GIT) 
18:05:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     SConsBigProjects would work, too. 
18:05:29  <sgk>  anything else to cover? 
18:05:43  <garyo>        No, I don't like [BigProjects](BigProjects), that's confusable with "how to do a big project with SCons."  Anyway I'll think about it. 
18:05:52  <sgk>  I've found that I like Mercurial, myself 
18:06:18  <garyo>        I front a svn repo with git and hg daily.  hg is easy, git takes a little more work but no biggie. 
18:06:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik has mentioned on the mailing list that he wants to use Hg with SCons SVN. 
18:06:44  *      sgk needs to get more modern 
18:07:04  <garyo>        I prefer git because I'm hardcore, but hg is nice & pillowy :-) :-) 
18:07:15  <bdbaddog>     I'm fine with either hg or git. 
18:07:36  <Jason_at_Intel>       does hg work with non standard SVN layouts? 
18:07:49  <garyo>        not easily, they both suck at that 
18:08:03  <sgk>  okay, i'm gone -- thanks guys 
18:08:09  <garyo>        g'night Steven! 
18:08:14  *      sgk (~[sgk@](mailto:sgk@ has left #SCONS 
18:08:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Me, too; dinner is called.... 
18:08:24  <garyo>        time for me to go too, homework time for kids 
18:08:26  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away 
18:08:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       ok later all 
18:08:37  <bdbaddog>     l8r 
18:09:01  *      garyo has quit (Quit: Leaving.) 
18:09:14  *      Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458])