1. SCons
  2. Core
  3. SCons

Wiki

Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-06-01

16:08:25  *      Jason_at_Intel (~[chatzilla@12.18.240.224](mailto:chatzilla@12.18.240.224)) has joined #SCONS 
16:49:47  *      techtonik (~[chatzilla@mm-127-247-57-86.leased.line.mgts.by](mailto:chatzilla@mm-127-247-57-86.leased.line.mgts.by)) has joined #SCONS 
16:51:42  *      bdbaddog (~[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has joined #SCONS 
16:59:43  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away 
16:59:32  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has entered the building... 
17:00:51  <bdbaddog>     Good evening Greg! 
17:02:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hey, all; I don't see Steven, although he said he would make it.  Shall we give him a couple of minutes? 
17:02:14  <bdbaddog>     Sure. 
17:04:39  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-fhtfswcishgntsxo) has joined #SCONS 
17:04:47  <sgk>  yo 
17:04:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And here he is; shall we get started? 
17:05:16  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:05:19  <sgk>  let's do it 
17:05:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2545 consensus anytime p4 Greg 
17:05:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2627 consensus 2.1 p2 Steven 
17:05:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2628 needs a priority, but otherwise consensus research Steven; how about p3? 
17:05:38  <sgk>  p3 sounds good 
17:05:58  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:06:05  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 
17:06:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:06:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2630 needs a priority, but otherwise consensus research Steven; how about p2? 
17:06:28  <sgk>  how about 2629? 
17:06:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     oops, yes 2629; getting ahead of myself 
17:06:48  <sgk>  since i took the 2628 (and likely 2630), how about 2629 => garyo? 
17:07:26  <sgk>  seems like he already looked at it, and he can kick it back if it's a problem 
17:07:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me; what priority? 
17:07:48  <sgk>  since it's related to batching, p2 
17:08:42  <sgk>  maybe with a note inviting kicking it to me if it looks too tied to the other batching things 
17:08:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     no other opinion, done 
17:08:43  <sgk>  done 
17:08:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     try 26eo? 
17:08:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2630? 
17:08:55  <sgk>  26eo:  p2 
17:09:04  <sgk>  :-) 
17:09:18  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:09:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:09:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2631 consensus 2.1 p3 Rob 
17:09:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2632 consensus 2.1 p3 Rob 
17:09:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2633 
17:10:03  <sgk>  any barriers to inviting anatoly to update directly? 
17:10:18  *      sgk looks again at the bug itself... 
17:10:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'd like him to pass his changes by a native speaker before he commits, but otherwise no problem for me. 
17:10:55  <sgk>  agreed re: editing 
17:10:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll volunteer to be his editor. 
17:11:01  <sgk>  that could be either you or me 
17:11:04  <sgk>  you 
17:11:06  <sgk>  thnx 
17:11:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     or you... 
17:11:16  <sgk>  no backs! 
17:11:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     or even both, depending on who's available. 
17:11:37  <sgk>  both sounds reasonable 
17:12:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll make him a committer and close the issue... hmmm, what status? 
17:12:36  <sgk>  depending on his cycles... 2.0 would be nice...  p2? 
17:12:38  <sgk>  maybe even p1? 
17:12:47  <sgk>  there's a window of opportunity with 2.0 going out the door 
17:13:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll assign him the issue. 
17:13:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2.0 p1 tech<esc> 
17:13:40  <sgk>  done 
17:14:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2634 
17:14:20  <sgk>  garyo, ask for confirmation, close in two weeks if none? 
17:14:37  <Jason_at_Intel>       agreed 
17:15:15  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:15:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I can ask when I post the issues, but I'll assign it to Gary so he'll stay in the loop. 
17:15:55  <sgk>  okay 
17:15:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:15:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2635 
17:16:10  <sgk>  does david cournapeau have any cycles for 2635? 
17:16:27  <sgk>  assign to him, ask for it back if he's still mired in finishing his thesis? 
17:16:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Unfortunately, I have to admit my first language was FORTRAN, but David would be a better choice. 
17:17:17  <sgk>  let's give him a crack at it then 
17:17:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll do that, but if he can't, I'll take it (but not at a high priority).  (I think he won't be done until late June.) 
17:17:37  <sgk>  agreed 
17:17:37  <sgk>  thnx 
17:17:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:18:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2636 
17:18:00  <sgk>  2636:  i'm very much out of the loop on the packaging stuff, will go with consensus 
17:18:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     What happened to the student who wrote it? 
17:18:30  <sgk>  no idea 
17:18:33  <sgk>  was garyo mentor? 
17:19:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm...  Not me, so probably him. 
17:19:16  <sgk>  assign to garyo to follow up with student? 
17:19:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good idea 
17:19:54  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     what milestone, priority? 
17:20:02  <sgk>  2.1 p3 ? 
17:20:59  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:21:13  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 
17:21:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I guess that's OK; he can ask for it to be changed if need be.  2.2 might be better. 
17:21:26  <sgk>  done 
17:21:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1.3.doc I'd like to declare 2.0.0.beta.20100531 the release candidate and reopen the trunk for 2.1 development.  Since we have no documented flow for cherry-picking changesets from the trunk, I'm reluctant to say that these documentation issues could go in 2.0. 
17:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I have a background project to SConsify the current build scheme, so I've been working through the release flow in detail.  It's a mess, but I think I know what the flow should be; I could write up how to do the cherry-picking. 
17:21:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     But no matter what, I think Steven should make the assignments and then get hard-nosed about nagging to see that it gets done.  Otherwise it won't get done in time for 3.0... 
17:22:09  <sgk>  "...see that it gets done..."  it == ? 
17:22:16  <sgk>  the doc issues ? 
17:22:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
17:22:54  <sgk>  (break for shuttle in a few minutes) 
17:23:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The antecedent is "assignments" so it should be "them."  Mea culpa. 
17:23:43  <sgk>  i can do some assigning, but not sure who's in the volunteer pool 
17:24:04  <sgk>  (shuttle coming, biab) 
17:24:06  *      sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 
17:27:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     techtonik, are you here? 
17:28:00  *      sgk (~[sgk@67.218.102.129](mailto:sgk@67.218.102.129)) has joined #SCONS 
17:28:13  <sgk>  back (i think) 
17:28:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Maybe it would be a good test for techtonik (if you're reading, would you be willing to try?); it's clearly documentation that needs to be done. 
17:28:49  <sgk>  what'd i miss? 
17:29:06  <bdbaddog>     nada 
17:29:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     dead silence... 
17:29:19  <sgk>  heh 
17:29:30  <bdbaddog>     long day IRL 
17:30:33  <sgk>  okay, how about i just take a stab at reassigning the doc issues then 
17:30:36  <sgk>  might be random to start 
17:30:39  <bdbaddog>     so should we change the bootstrap logic to have a beta level ? 
17:30:42  <sgk>  but people can balk and then i can correct 
17:30:54  <bdbaddog>     and/or RC ? 
17:31:12  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  not sure what you mean 
17:31:16  <bdbaddog>     so bootstrap.py CHECKPOINT=beta|RC 
17:31:22  <bdbaddog>     in addition to d,r 
17:31:31  <sgk>  i already changed ".alpha." => to ".beta." in the SConstruct file 
17:31:38  <sgk>  for this last checkpoint 
17:31:50  <sgk>  but i just did it by hand, no configurability 
17:31:40  <bdbaddog>     k 
17:31:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No, I'm about to check in something that will fix that, but I'm still testing it. 
17:32:09  <sgk>  cool 
17:32:30  <sgk>  are all of the 1.3.x fixes in the current .beta.20100531 checkpoint? 
17:32:36  <bdbaddog>     nope. 
17:32:45  <bdbaddog>     I need to merge the MSVC stuff over. 
17:33:16  <bdbaddog>     should I do by hand, or would svnmerge be useful for this? though it would be a cherry pick of course. 
17:33:50  <sgk>  svnmerge can cherry pick 
17:33:56  <sgk>  just specify the revisions with -r 
17:34:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I've got a partially-complete wiki page on how to cherry-pick; I can finish it and post it. 
17:34:43  <bdbaddog>     k. that'd be great 
17:34:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, it uses svnmerge 
17:35:15  <sgk>  very cool 
17:35:19  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Give me a day or two to finish it and try it out. 
17:35:31  <bdbaddog>     hmm. o.k .was going to give it a wack tonight. 
17:35:44  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  are the 1.3.x changes in the latest checkpoint?  that is, they've gotten air time? 
17:36:01  <bdbaddog>     lateste 1.3 checkpoint yes. 
17:36:14  <bdbaddog>     though there's one bug or email about some initialization issues on vista. 
17:36:41  <sgk>  right, that's the one garyo replied to earlier today, yes? 
17:36:48  <bdbaddog>     yes 
17:37:50  <sgk>  if we take these in 2.0, do we need another checkpoint for them, or do we go with it? 
17:38:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'd rather not have another checkpoint. 
17:38:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     In fact, I'd rather go with the current checkpoint. 
17:39:05  <sgk>  i'm really loathe to ship something that regresses from 1.3.x 
17:39:23  <sgk>  especially in an area like the Windows initialization 
17:39:11  <bdbaddog>     ditto 
17:40:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I am, too, but I've promised that 2.0.0 would be out on Flag Day; unless we put out another checkpoint this weekend, there's no way. 
17:39:38  <bdbaddog>     I can do the merge, and push out another checkpoint tonight/tomorrow? 
17:39:44  <Jason_at_Intel>       There seems to be a lot of issues with msvc.. I don't think people want this to get worse 
17:40:12  <Jason_at_Intel>       2.0 should make it better or be the same as 1.3 
17:41:07  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  i like your idea 
17:41:25  <sgk>  garyo is (i think) on vacation this week, any chance someone else can look at the outstanding vista issue? 
17:41:46  <bdbaddog>     sure. I can respond with the guy. 
17:42:50  <sgk>  thnx 
17:43:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, can you assign the doc issues and see how many can be done this week?  See if some can get in the checkpoint?  Maybe delay a checkpoint until Friday or so? 
17:43:11  <sgk>  i'll try to be online tonight, so if there's anything i can help with, le tme know 
17:43:18  <bdbaddog>     will do. 
17:43:42  <bdbaddog>     [GregNoel](GregNoel) - can u point me to your cherry picking page? is it useful though incomplete at this point? 
17:44:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It's on my home wiki... 
17:45:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I need a day to clean it up, at least; too many notes to self to be useful 
17:45:11  <bdbaddog>     [http://scons.org/wiki/GregNoel](http://scons.org/wiki/GregNoel) 
17:45:14  <bdbaddog>     there? 
17:45:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     [http://localhost:8000/](http://localhost:8000/) 
17:46:38  <bdbaddog>     ahh. yeah.. that's hard to get to from here.. ;) 
17:47:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Only three firewalls to get through... 
17:47:24  <bdbaddog>     oh.. I thought you'd make it a real challenge.. ;) 
17:47:43  <bdbaddog>     Any other items for today? 
17:48:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, will you reassign the doc issues? 
17:48:31  <sgk>  yes 
17:48:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Can you do it tonight? 
17:49:33  <sgk>  i think so 
17:49:41  <sgk>  tomorrow morning otherwise 
17:49:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     If we get them to people tonight, we might get some back for the next checkpoint. 
17:50:52  <sgk>  okay, if we finish here soon i may have time right now 
17:51:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I don't think we have anything else...  And my [TiVo](TiVo) is sick; I need to go troubleshoot it. 
17:52:03  <bdbaddog>     k. sounds good to me. 
17:52:04  <sgk>  anyone have anything else to discuss? 
17:52:17  <Jason_at_Intel>       not here at the moment 
17:52:26  <bdbaddog>     nope. 
17:52:35  <sgk>  all right then, I'll peel off and go scatter some documentation issues to the wind 
17:52:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Looks like we're done, so g'night all... 
17:52:51  <Jason_at_Intel>       bye 
17:52:54  <bdbaddog>     gnight as well 
17:53:00  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has left the building... 
17:53:02  <sgk>  bye 
17:53:03  *      Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]) 
17:53:06  *      sgk (~[sgk@67.218.102.129](mailto:sgk@67.218.102.129)) has left #SCONS 
17:53:14  *      bdbaddog (~[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-4-229.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has left #SCONS 
17:54:18  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away 

Updated