02:55 garyo-home ok guys, I'm here.
02:56 garyo-home Hm, the list looks different already. Someone's been pruning!
02:59 GregNoel Scheduled start in two minutes. Is Steven back?
03:00 garyo-home He did say he might be late. I vote we just start in a few minutes. There's a lot of bugs to triage.
03:00 GregNoel I agree. Who's here and planning to participate?
03:00 bdbaddog I'm here.
03:00 garyo-home ditto.
03:01 -!- jrandall [n=jim@bas1-london14-1096624235.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #scons
03:01 garyo-home Are we sorting the list by priority?
03:01 garyo-home i.e. 892 is the first one we look at?
03:01 bdbaddog I think the link on http://scons.org/wiki/BugParty is to a list sorted by priority.
03:02 bdbaddog which starts at 892
03:02 GregNoel You type faster than I do; yes, that's the link
03:02 garyo-home thought so.
03:02 bdbaddog 430..
03:02 bdbaddog there'll be plenty left, we can defer if we need advice.. ?
03:03 garyo-home ok, let's start. I say 892 look interesting but not for now.
03:03 GregNoel If we can manage the P1 and P2, plus all the ones that have votes, I'll be satisfied for today. If we can get significantly further, I'll be happy.
03:03 garyo-home Steven says he can't even repro it.
03:03 GregNoel worksforme
03:04 GregNoel Who should resolve it?
03:04 garyo-home right, someone should be responsible for actually editing the bugs here. I guess I'll do it.
03:04 garyo-home My connection's decent anyway.
03:05 garyo-home I just have to learn my way around the darn thing.
03:05 GregNoel OK, I appreciate it; my typing is slow enough that it would slow things down significantly
03:05 garyo-home no prob. 892 is done. Next?
03:05 GregNoel It's really not that hard {;-}
03:05 GregNoel 1041
03:06 garyo-home 1041 is from 2005. Looks like maybe a real bug. Defer?
03:06 GregNoel I _think_ this has been fixed; I know there's been work done here. Research?
03:06 bdbaddog yup. looks like needs to be run on cygwin?
03:07 garyo-home yuck, cygwin python is teh evil.
03:07 bdbaddog :)
03:07 garyo-home I made it research. Next?
03:07 GregNoel Who gets it? Steven?
03:07 bdbaddog if you want to assign to me to research, that's fine.
03:07 GregNoel OK, done
03:08 garyo-home 1581
03:08 GregNoel P3 in 2.x?
03:08 bdbaddog sounds good to me.
03:08 garyo-home at least. This seems hard and not all that interesting.
03:09 GregNoel OK, sounds good.
03:09 GregNoel Next is 1727
03:09 GregNoel I have no clue
03:09 garyo-home omg it's in Russian.
03:10 garyo-home This one comes up on the list now & then. I bet it's a dup of something else, let me check.
03:10 bdbaddog :)
03:10 GregNoel Only the first part. Steven's response is clever.
03:10 bdbaddog It may be part of a genrealized handling of long command lines for windows.
03:10 bdbaddog I'm dealing with such at one of my clients with windows build now.
03:11 bdbaddog not this specific one, but long command lines on win32.
03:11 garyo-home 800 is also about long lines.
03:12 GregNoel It's assigned to sbaranov, not a Tigris account; maybe Bill could contact him?
03:12 garyo-home but it's not a dup. OK to move to research for 1721?
03:13 GregNoel Yes, and 800 as well. Bill, can you take them?
03:13 garyo-home ok, will do 800 now.
03:13 bdbaddog ok. I'll make a note and try to contact the filer and assigned to.
03:13 garyo-home Bill, what's your tigris login?
03:14 GregNoel 1899, I think should be 0.xx or 1.0
03:14 garyo-home must be easy, right?
03:14 GregNoel Hopefully, but it seems important
03:15 garyo-home I think it's already done and the user's seeing a unicode problem. Just a guess.
03:15 bdbaddog looks like there's changes already submited.. follow the urls.
03:15 garyo-home OK I'll put it as 0.xx.
03:15 bdbaddog sounds good.
03:15 GregNoel 396
03:16 garyo-home nice enhancement but not for 1.0.
03:16 GregNoel We know that relative paths are expensive to calculate in general, but for this specific case it might be feasible.
03:16 garyo-home 1.x?
03:16 GregNoel yes
03:16 bdbaddog is that "polish" or featuer?
03:16 GregNoel and P3
03:16 bdbaddog feature ?
03:17 GregNoel yes
03:17 garyo-home sorry, what?
03:17 GregNoel Ur, I mean yes to both; it's fuzzy.
03:17 garyo-home P3 I got.
03:17 garyo-home oh I get it. I say it's a feature.
03:18 bdbaddog o.k. and not a regression, if so I'd push to 2.x
03:18 garyo-home Have to duck out for a couple of minutes. Be right back.
03:18 bdbaddog ok
03:19 GregNoel I could accept that. It comes in the category of "things that might be done while we're consolidating 1.0"
03:19 bdbaddog so file 2.x and if it gets done, cool?
03:20 GregNoel No, file 1.x and if it doesn't get done, push to 2.x
03:20 bdbaddog :D
03:20 bdbaddog I see we have opposite approaches..
03:20 bdbaddog This is a would be nice, but not a must have, right?
03:20 GregNoel Maybe make it P4 so it's an obvious candidate
03:21 GregNoel Gary, you seem to have the deciding opinion; are you back?
03:22 bdbaddog That's just the approach I use on commercial projects. Works pretty well.
03:22 GregNoel In the meantime, 1420 has two competing patches; maybe 1.x P3?
03:22 garyo-home ok sorry, here I am
03:22 garyo-home what's up?
03:23 GregNoel Bill, promise them less and surprise them?
03:23 GregNoel Gary, scroll back; you have a decision.
03:23 bdbaddog Well focus on the must haves, and if you have time for the would be nice. pleasant surprise, but do what you say you will, is my approach.
03:23 garyo-home We're on 396, right? It's 1.x vs 2.x?
03:24 GregNoel yes
03:24 bdbaddog Gary - basically if it's a would be nice do we push to the next further out marker.
03:24 bdbaddog versus a must have.
03:24 garyo-home Looks like a would-be-nice to me.
03:24 GregNoel In FOSS, it's not as bad to get bumped
03:24 garyo-home Right, someone can always submit a patch.
03:25 garyo-home I'm going to put it in 2.x, P3. You guys start the next one.
03:25 bdbaddog o.k. thanks.
03:26 GregNoel With two patches, I say 1.x P3
03:26 garyo-home Oh yeah, this is a good one. People get bit by this.
03:26 bdbaddog basically just needs some tests?
03:26 GregNoel I haven't read the patches.
03:26 garyo-home Greg, you've looked at this. 1.x P2?
03:27 bdbaddog looks like there are tests in both patches, one is a lot simpler than the other looks like. but could be the amount of tests.
03:27 GregNoel 1.x P3, but I'd buy P2
03:27 garyo-home ok done.
03:27 garyo-home 1461
03:28 GregNoel 1461, no clue
03:28 GregNoel Bypass and ask Steven when he shows?
03:28 garyo-home ancient. Don't even know if it would still happen. Get more info?
03:28 jrandall just tried it, still happens
03:28 GregNoel yes
03:28 garyo-home jrandall: you're fast!
03:29 garyo-home would you make a note?
03:29 GregNoel Hi, jrandall, glad to have you aboard
03:29 jrandall cheated - went ahead on that as I was curious :)
03:29 jrandall hello!
03:29 garyo-home ok, I'll make a note to come back to 1461.
03:29 GregNoel 1849
03:29 garyo-home 1849
03:30 garyo-home No Java fixes (or any tool) in 1.0, I say.
03:30 GregNoel There's been some work with Java; this may be fixed. Research?
03:30 bdbaddog yup. I'll try and get ahold of the filer.
03:30 garyo-home OK. Steven already asked him for more info.
03:31 GregNoel It may be the same as 1594
03:31 bdbaddog can just send him that we'll be closing the bug if we don't hear in N days?
03:31 garyo-home right. 318 now?
03:31 garyo-home bdbaddog: ok w/ me.
03:31 GregNoel Or merge it into 1594
03:31 bdbaddog future
03:31 GregNoel 318 1.x?
03:31 bdbaddog for 318
03:32 GregNoel SCons is going to be torn up for 2.0, i18n may be reasonable to look at then
03:32 garyo-home bdbaddog: can you take both 1594 & 1849, or should I merge them now?
03:32 garyo-home Greg: right, no i18n now.
03:33 bdbaddog sure. 1594 and 1849
03:33 GregNoel It's not clear they're the same issue, but probably.
03:33 bdbaddog Should I modify 1594 then?
03:33 GregNoel your choice. I tend to merge with the earliest.
03:33 garyo-home bdbaddog: if you don't mind.
03:33 bdbaddog done.
03:34 garyo-home ok, 331
03:34 GregNoel not i18n now, but maybe look at it for 2.0, so 1.x
03:34 garyo-home 331 -> 2.0
03:34 bdbaddog yup
03:35 GregNoel 2.x, there's no 2.0
03:35 garyo-home 331 done.
03:35 bdbaddog 340 future
03:35 GregNoel ditto
03:35 garyo-home yup.
03:35 bdbaddog would be cool though..
03:35 GregNoel 345 future
03:35 bdbaddog summer of code.. ;)
03:36 garyo-home 345 done. 359?
03:36 bdbaddog future
03:36 GregNoel future
03:36 garyo-home Someone was interested in jython. But future I say.
03:37 GregNoel summer of code
03:37 bdbaddog SOC. yes.
03:37 garyo-home I put that in the comment.
03:37 bdbaddog 362 2.x ?
03:37 GregNoel I've got it as a note; 359 was already there; I'll add 345.
03:37 garyo-home None of 362 seems at all important to me. 2.x if ever.
03:38 GregNoel 362 2.x
03:38 bdbaddog 2.x
03:38 bdbaddog 388 2.x that is.
03:38 garyo-home offtopic: it is annoying I have to enter a comment on each change.
03:38 GregNoel 388 2.x
03:38 garyo-home 388: agreed.
03:39 GregNoel just make a list and do a mass change afterward
03:39 GregNoel or one mass change for each category
03:39 bdbaddog 389 2.x
03:39 GregNoel 389 future
03:39 garyo-home I"ve never tried mass change, but if it works I'll do that.
03:40 garyo-home 389 is our stuff, Greg.
03:40 bdbaddog yup.
03:40 GregNoel take Tony off 389; he's not active any more exept as a moderator
03:40 GregNoel Gary, yes, but we have no clue about the schedule for it yet
03:41 bdbaddog but sometime, so I think it's o.k with 2.x
03:41 garyo-home right. I'll put it there.
03:41 GregNoel 583 is SoC, also TaskmasterNG
03:41 bdbaddog o.k. cool. so 2.x ?
03:42 GregNoel yes
03:42 garyo-home I don't think 583 can really be done properly.
03:42 garyo-home 583 -> future
03:42 bdbaddog fine by me. 2.x or future, or never.
03:42 GregNoel it can be done, and if you intend to include it from the begining, it's not hard
03:42 GregNoel 2.x, give it to me
03:43 garyo-home ok.
03:43 bdbaddog 590 2.x
03:43 garyo-home I think 590 is done, I'm closing it. It's mine anyway.
03:43 GregNoel 590 is INVALID; Gary, you want to do the honors?
03:44 GregNoel Geeze, everybody types faster than me
03:44 bdbaddog :)
03:44 GregNoel 1295
03:44 jrandall I put a note in this one. I give good odds it's fixed already
03:45 GregNoel Maybe 1.x, but I could be persuaded
03:45 garyo-home research, then either already done or 1.x?
03:45 bdbaddog if it's not fixed, push to 2.0
03:45 bdbaddog research. yes.
03:45 garyo-home done
03:45 GregNoel research by jrandall. see what you get?
03:45 jrandall OK
03:46 GregNoel 1413, no clue
03:46 bdbaddog this is when you isntall as not an administrator.
03:46 garyo-home duh.
03:46 bdbaddog and you are presented option to select install dir, 90% sure of that.
03:46 garyo-home 2.x or future?
03:47 bdbaddog or roll in with the stand alone.
03:47 bdbaddog yes. 2.x
03:47 bdbaddog New installer would be good in 2.x timeframe.
03:47 GregNoel "standalone" one word
03:47 garyo-home +1 on new installer someday.
03:47 bdbaddog where x != 0
03:47 garyo-home ok.
03:48 GregNoel 1423
03:48 garyo-home 1423: need a test case.
03:48 bdbaddog I think this is like running .configure, and not make distclean..
03:49 bdbaddog and expecting it to regenerate cached values ?
03:49 GregNoel 2.x possibly 1.x
03:49 garyo-home blkdog: it's actually happened before to me, I think there is a bug in there somewhere.
03:49 bdbaddog 2.x
03:49 garyo-home ok, 2.x it is
03:49 GregNoel 1429, 2.x maybe 1.x
03:50 bdbaddog 2.x
03:50 garyo-home sorry guys, another interruption, please keep going.
03:50 GregNoel There's an easy workaround, so 2.x
03:50 bdbaddog yup.
03:51 GregNoel 1752 may be fixed
03:51 bdbaddog gimme a sec. I'll try it.
03:51 GregNoel OK, research by Bill it is.
03:51 GregNoel If nothing else, it's probably a dup of 1699
03:52 bdbaddog testcase doesn't work.
03:52 bdbaddog in latest svn.
03:52 bdbaddog scons: Reading SConscript files ...
03:52 bdbaddog TypeError: Clean() takes exactly 3 arguments (2 given):
03:52 bdbaddog File "/home/bdbaddog/1752/SConstruct", line 5:
03:52 bdbaddog Clean("install")
03:52 bdbaddog File "/home/bdbaddog/tools/stow/scons-svn/lib/scons-0.97.0d20080317/SCons/Script/SConscript.py", line 596:
03:52 bdbaddog return apply(method, args, kw)
03:52 bdbaddog research.
03:52 GregNoel env.Clean()
03:52 bdbaddog I'll take a look at it.
03:53 GregNoel Also 1699?
03:53 bdbaddog TypeError: Clean() takes exactly 3 arguments (2 given):
03:53 garyo-home ok sorry about that, glad I don't work from home. :-)
03:54 garyo-home 1429 -> 2.x, 1752 -> research, right?
03:54 GregNoel Except that she's offered pizza, I'd have tied down my wife...
03:54 GregNoel And 1699 may be a dup of 1752
03:54 garyo-home I don't believe that for a second, Greg.
03:54 bdbaddog I'll research 1699 and 1752
03:55 garyo-home OK, can you make the mods to those issues then?
03:55 bdbaddog yup
03:55 GregNoel That's why I said "may"
03:55 GregNoel 1848 is multiple bugs
03:56 GregNoel I suggest Steven to research. He's not here, so he can't complain.
03:56 garyo-home No, I know what 1848 is, it's an alias that conflicts with a filename.
03:57 garyo-home Workaround is to use Alias('hello') where you mean the alias.
03:57 garyo-home Or File() or the builder result where you mean the file.
03:57 GregNoel Yes, but there are multiple problems in the bug
03:57 garyo-home They're all the same, I think. I'll take it as research.
03:57 GregNoel ok
03:58 GregNoel 1922 is resolved
03:58 garyo-home done.
03:58 bdbaddog my list just went away,... next is gone.
03:58 garyo-home 1526 I think
03:58 GregNoel 1526 should be 0.xx {;-}
03:59 bdbaddog ok .got it again.
03:59 bdbaddog feature right?
03:59 garyo-home sure Greg.
03:59 garyo-home :-)
03:59 jrandall has the most votes you know :)
03:59 GregNoel basis for many other features
03:59 bdbaddog It does sound useful though..
03:59 bdbaddog but I think 2.x
04:00 GregNoel including new configure, Gary
04:00 garyo-home 1.x at least, or 2.x. Yes, might interact w/ new toolchain/tool-config stuff indeed. How about I say 1.x for now?
04:00 GregNoel K
04:00 bdbaddog 2.x or punt til steven gets online..
04:01 garyo-home made a note to ask him about it
04:01 bdbaddog k next.
04:01 GregNoel 1839
04:02 garyo-home I've seen this too, on a 2-cpu linux box.
04:02 GregNoel I know Steven worried about this, but it looks like INVALID to me.
04:02 bdbaddog do you need to eat up all the available processes to get this?
04:02 garyo-home I think I had to trap that errno and return success (which wasn't really right so I didn't submit it)
04:02 garyo-home bdbaddog: no I don't think so.
04:03 bdbaddog how do you reproduce the problem?
04:03 garyo-home I thought it was the subprocess returning so fast the wait logic got confused.
04:03 garyo-home repro: a big build with lots of stuff going on, and -jN.
04:03 bdbaddog on linux?
04:04 garyo-home Yes. Actually looking at the last comment, maybe my bug was different? I don't use backtick.
04:04 bdbaddog is there a known fix?
04:04 garyo-home In any case we can't do anything about it for 1.0.
04:04 bdbaddog yeah. that's what I'm thinking.
04:04 bdbaddog 2.x
04:05 garyo-home Not for mine, I rerun the build. And it hasn't happened to me in a long time.
04:05 garyo-home ok 1839 -> 2.x.
04:05 garyo-home 1633
04:05 GregNoel 1633 just showed up on the mailing list again today, 1.x?
04:06 garyo-home Why is this not the same as Depends?
04:06 GregNoel If you don't have a scanner that works, what's the workaround?
04:06 bdbaddog punt til steven comes online, looks like he's worked on it a bit.
04:06 GregNoel No, it's not a dependency; it's like an #include in a source file
04:07 garyo-home So the dependency gets scanned, that's the behavior that differs?
04:07 GregNoel What scanner for Te
04:07 GregNoel What scanner for TeX was that?
04:07 bdbaddog I'm sure Steven can explain when he gets online..
04:08 garyo-home ok, I'll defer it. But we still aren't going to do it for 1.0.
04:08 bdbaddog true.
04:08 GregNoel I'd say 1.x
04:08 bdbaddog 2.x ping Steven Later for details?
04:08 GregNoel 1.x
04:08 bdbaddog feature. not a bug. I'd say 2.x
04:09 garyo-home It's on the "revisit with Steven" list for now, let's move on.
04:09 GregNoel 1086
04:09 garyo-home 1086 is batch builders, a wonderful idea for 2.x.
04:09 bdbaddog 2.x
04:09 GregNoel It's a SoC; 2.x is fine.
04:09 bdbaddog It will make one of my clients very happy.
04:09 garyo-home :-)
04:10 GregNoel decision?
04:10 bdbaddog 1671 looks like part of the great tool refactoring?
04:10 bdbaddog 2.x for 1086
04:10 garyo-home 1671 is a toolchain one, yes.
04:10 bdbaddog 1671 2.x
04:10 garyo-home 2.x for 1086 and 1671.
04:10 GregNoel Steven should have something to say
04:10 garyo-home (or maybe pre-2.0, it's important -- but not 1.0)
04:11 bdbaddog should make a note to wrap up the tool realated bugs into one umbrella to tie them together.
04:11 garyo-home 1671 I mean
04:11 GregNoel 1.x?
04:11 GregNoel and revisit?
04:11 bdbaddog 2.x
04:11 garyo-home bdbaddog: I created a "tool" subcategory this morning for this.
04:11 bdbaddog O.k. cool.
04:12 GregNoel decision?
04:12 garyo-home ok 1671 is 1.x for now so we are forced to think about it then.
04:12 bdbaddog I'd disagree.
04:12 GregNoel Oh, 1671 is a dup of 1007, so it's been around
04:12 bdbaddog feels like a feature. better tool messaging.
04:13 GregNoel feels like a bug if it bites you.
04:13 bdbaddog :)
04:13 bdbaddog but it never worked before..
04:13 garyo-home Greg's right about that, but the right way to fix it is to refactor (feature)
04:13 GregNoel Even worse, it leads to silent failures
04:14 bdbaddog I'm voting 2.x, we can punt til Steven's online to get his opinion and move on.
04:14 garyo-home I think since Greg & I are working on it (in theory) it's possible to get it in soonish. I'll mark it as disputed.
04:14 GregNoel Yes, revisit with Steven
04:14 -!- stevenknight [n=stevenkn@c-24-4-99-215.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scons
04:14 bdbaddog speaking of the devil...;)
04:14 stevenknight yo
04:14 garyo-home Hi Steven!
04:14 bdbaddog 17 in rush hour fun I guess.
04:15 GregNoel Uh, it isn't our stuff; this is different
04:15 GregNoel Ho, Steven
04:15 stevenknight no, it was the fact that SJC now has all their restaurants and stuff behind the security gate
04:15 stevenknight didn't last time I was there
04:15 stevenknight lost time parking, going in, etc.
04:15 stevenknight gah
04:15 bdbaddog oh boy.
04:15 bdbaddog well now for something stress free..
04:15 bdbaddog :)
04:15 garyo-home ah well. We have a short list of deferred issues for you, otherwise we're up to 1912.
04:15 stevenknight cool
04:16 garyo-home Can we do the deferred ones now?
04:16 stevenknight i'm okay with it
04:16 garyo-home 1461, 1526, 1633, 1671
04:16 bdbaddog may as well. they'll be higher priorities than later ones.
04:17 GregNoel 1461
04:17 garyo-home 1461: wtf? 1526: entry pt refactor 1633 and 1671: dispute re: 1.x or 2.x.
04:17 garyo-home yes, 1461 first.
04:17 garyo-home Steven: none of us understand this one.
04:18 stevenknight i seem to have net lag to tigris.org
04:18 stevenknight hang on...
04:18 GregNoel Er, I understand 1461, but I don't know how hard the fix is
04:18 garyo-home ok
04:19 stevenknight 1461: probably pretty hairy
04:19 garyo-home Using mkdir in an action is not elementary
04:20 stevenknight it touches on the fact that Dir nodes are kind of like other nodes in that we want to be able to treat them as targets
04:20 garyo-home ok, so 1461 -> 2.x?
04:20 stevenknight but they also get treated differently if they're created as part of making room for some other target
04:20 stevenknight yeah, no reason to hold 1.0 for it
04:20 stevenknight probably won't happen
04:20 stevenknight by then
04:20 garyo-home (Steven, I'm making a list of changes which I'll apply in batch to Tigris later.)
04:20 stevenknight (cool, thanks)
04:20 stevenknight 1526:
04:20 garyo-home ok, 1526 then
04:20 stevenknight net lag...
04:21 garyo-home Greg wants scons entry points refactored
04:21 bdbaddog I was sugguesting 2.x rather than 1.x
04:21 * GregNoel is staying mum
04:21 jrandall *** as is jrandall
04:22 bdbaddog reasoning being, feels like a feature, so push to 2.x
04:22 stevenknight ah, 1526...!
04:22 stevenknight there was one brief moment where I felt like I understood the underlying intent in a way that translated to a real API
04:23 stevenknight but I lost it quite awhile ago
04:23 GregNoel (;)
04:23 stevenknight it's probably not hard if Greg and I work out the specifics
04:23 stevenknight THAT would be the trick... :-)
04:23 bdbaddog :)
04:23 GregNoel I'm willing
04:23 stevenknight can we put it on a maybe-for-1.0 and Greg and I try to work it into shape off line?
04:23 bdbaddog Yeah.I'm just sugguesting that (to counter your fore-stated predilection of putting one more feature in), to push features to 2.x, and if they get done earlier then cool.
04:24 garyo-home Not 1.0, but 1.x?
04:24 GregNoel 1.x
04:24 stevenknight 1.x
04:24 garyo-home ok, and if it doesn't get done, then no big deal.
04:24 GregNoel yes
04:24 stevenknight 1633: (pre-loaded while working on the others)
04:24 GregNoel Includes() is not Depends()
04:25 stevenknight this looked like it was going to be easy, but started getting hairy
04:25 garyo-home ... because it scans the dependency.
04:25 stevenknight right
04:25 stevenknight Joseph's last suggestion should be tried
04:25 garyo-home I say feature therefore 2.x.
04:25 garyo-home steven: well, that would be easy...
04:25 GregNoel I saw it as something that acted as if it were scanned in.
04:26 stevenknight hmm, yeah, 2.x
04:26 garyo-home ok, done.
04:26 stevenknight it's another one I'd really like to get in, too
04:26 bdbaddog so this would be used when theres no scanner or the scanner isn't 100% ?
04:26 stevenknight but i'm trying to be good... :-)
04:26 GregNoel 1671 and 1007
04:26 stevenknight yeah, the situation I envisioned is you have a one-off and you don't want to write a scanner for it
04:26 bdbaddog 1671 is another feels like a feature, it's not a regression,
04:26 stevenknight if you know the dependency, it would let you just hard-wire it
04:27 stevenknight 1671: boy, i'm torn on this one
04:27 stevenknight i hoped the ToolInitializer stuff would permit this
04:27 garyo-home The right way to fix it is the toolchain stuff Greg and I are working on.
04:27 GregNoel Er, not the same
04:27 garyo-home It's important but nontrivial.
04:27 bdbaddog Greg and Gary are doing tool refactor, but that's unlikely to be in the next month right?
04:27 stevenknight it really sucks that we only give people an impenetrable AttributeError in this case
04:27 stevenknight but ToolInitializer drags in a whole bunch of other issues
04:28 garyo-home bdbaddog: not next month for sure.
04:28 GregNoel This isn't Tool refactor!
04:28 * stevenknight agrees w/garyo-home re: nontrivial
04:28 garyo-home Greg: it's not the tool refactor but that would fix it, right?
04:28 GregNoel no
04:28 stevenknight does it or doesn't it line up with the toolchain stuff? Gary seemed to say yes but Greg disagreed?
04:28 bdbaddog I say put to 2.x, when it can be part of the tool solution?
04:29 stevenknight what are we treating as the difference between 1.x and 2.x?
04:29 garyo-home ok Greg, maybe toolchain doesn't *always* fix it, story too long to be told here & now.
04:29 GregNoel 1.x should be done before 2.0, in some order
04:29 stevenknight that's it? then i'd vote 1.x on this one
04:29 bdbaddog 1.x is polish on 1.0, 2.x should be new features.
04:30 GregNoel "be flexible"
04:30 garyo-home what bdbaddog said.
04:30 stevenknight yeah, polish
04:30 bdbaddog 1.xIssues that should be resolved during the 1.x release cycles. Since the 1.x cycle will be fairly short, these will probably focus on
04:30 stevenknight agreed re: flexible, too
04:30 garyo-home ok, so?
04:30 stevenknight so i'd vote 1.x, and we can alway reclassify 2.x if that looks non-viable, yes?
04:30 GregNoel yes
04:31 stevenknight okay, 1.x
04:31 garyo-home usually I'd say push the feature out, but this one bites *so* many people.
04:31 bdbaddog I'll still vote 2.x, but defer to greater numbers.
04:31 stevenknight right
04:31 garyo-home 1.x it is then.
04:31 garyo-home Now we're back to the regular list.
04:31 GregNoel 1913, C#
04:31 garyo-home 1912 I think?
04:31 GregNoel oops, 1912
04:31 bdbaddog 2.x
04:31 garyo-home 2.x
04:31 GregNoel 2.x
04:32 stevenknight we're going in top-voted order?
04:32 stevenknight 2.x
04:32 GregNoel "be flexible" consensus
04:32 GregNoel 1917 is a dup and should be gone
04:32 GregNoel 589?
04:33 bdbaddog 2.x
04:33 garyo-home steven: order is priority, go to http://www.scons.org/wiki/BugParty & click there.
04:33 garyo-home 589 is next, yes?
04:33 bdbaddog yes.
04:33 GregNoel 2.x
04:33 bdbaddog or future.. needs python 2.3
04:34 GregNoel That can be retrofitted, I think
04:34 garyo-home ok, 2.x then?
04:34 bdbaddog yup.
04:34 GregNoel 1228
04:34 GregNoel Another new config issue
04:34 garyo-home did I miss 1217?
04:35 GregNoel dup
04:35 garyo-home ok
04:35 bdbaddog 2.x
04:35 garyo-home 2.x tools
04:35 bdbaddog 1228 2.x that is (I'd vote for it.. )
04:35 GregNoel I'll add a "new config" keyword for these issues
04:36 stevenknight 1228: 2.x
04:36 garyo-home don't call it config though please, how about toolchain
04:36 GregNoel 1938
04:36 GregNoel ok
04:37 bdbaddog Jim u going to chime in on this one? ;)
04:37 GregNoel I've looked at this; it's a grotty problem
04:37 jrandall ay e- would love to see this fixed if possible
04:37 bdbaddog o.k. ugly problem either 2.x or 1.x
04:37 bdbaddog though it looks like its a regression.
04:38 garyo-home we need a milestone for "try for 1.x else 2.x"
04:38 stevenknight still loading for me: this is how multiple targets get the same MD5 in the cache, yes?
04:38 bdbaddog I though all 2.x's would get tried for 1.x..
04:38 GregNoel Gary, 1.x P4
04:38 GregNoel or even P5
04:38 garyo-home 1.x p4 I can live with.
04:38 stevenknight ah, no, just got it up
04:38 GregNoel Bill, only if we run out of 1.x
04:39 jrandall this makes it hard to use implicit-cache, which is a bummer
04:39 bdbaddog exactly.
04:39 stevenknight 1938: 1.x
04:39 garyo-home ok done.
04:39 bdbaddog 417 future.
04:39 GregNoel 417
04:39 garyo-home 417 (then 1465, Steven)
04:39 stevenknight 417 future
04:39 GregNoel future
04:39 garyo-home future ok, done.
04:40 GregNoel if we keep it at all
04:40 garyo-home 1465?
04:40 GregNoel no clue
04:40 stevenknight 1465: 1.x
04:40 garyo-home This is a tool thing, it's nice, not too hard but should be 2.x.
04:40 bdbaddog 2.x
04:40 stevenknight unless someone else knows that patch better and wants to take it on
04:40 garyo-home I'll take this one, I do this kind of thing in real life
04:41 GregNoel 1678?
04:41 stevenknight for 1.x?
04:41 GregNoel yes
04:41 stevenknight k
04:41 GregNoel There's a wiki page on it; we should talk
04:41 stevenknight 1678: how close does Maciej's stuff bring us to this?
04:42 stevenknight I think it comes in whenever that does
04:42