1 02:55 < garyo-home> ok guys, I'm here.
2 02:56 < garyo-home> Hm, the list looks different already. Someone's been pruning!
3 02:59 < GregNoel> Scheduled start in two minutes. Is Steven back?
4 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.
5 03:00 < GregNoel> I agree. Who's here and planning to participate?
6 03:00 < bdbaddog> I'm here.
7 03:00 < garyo-home> ditto.
8 03:01 -!- jrandall
9 03:01 < garyo-home> Are we sorting the list by priority?
10 03:01 < garyo-home> i.e. 892 is the first one we look at?
11 03:01 < bdbaddog> I think the link on http://scons.org/wiki/BugParty is to a list sorted by priority.
12 03:02 < bdbaddog> which starts at 892
13 03:02 < GregNoel> You type faster than I do; yes, that's the link
14 03:02 < garyo-home> thought so.
15 03:02 < bdbaddog> 430..
16 03:02 < bdbaddog> there'll be plenty left, we can defer if we need advice.. ?
17 03:03 < garyo-home> ok, let's start. I say 892 look interesting but not for now.
18 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.
19 03:03 < garyo-home> Steven says he can't even repro it.
20 03:03 < GregNoel> worksforme
21 03:04 < GregNoel> Who should resolve it?
22 03:04 < garyo-home> right, someone should be responsible for actually editing the bugs here. I guess I'll do it.
23 03:04 < garyo-home> My connection's decent anyway.
24 03:05 < garyo-home> I just have to learn my way around the darn thing.
25 03:05 < GregNoel> OK, I appreciate it; my typing is slow enough that it would slow things down significantly
26 03:05 < garyo-home> no prob. 892 is done. Next?
27 03:05 < GregNoel> It's really not that hard {;-}
28 03:05 < GregNoel> 1041
29 03:06 < garyo-home> 1041 is from 2005. Looks like maybe a real bug. Defer?
30 03:06 < GregNoel> I _think_ this has been fixed; I know there's been work done here. Research?
31 03:06 < bdbaddog> yup. looks like needs to be run on cygwin?
32 03:07 < garyo-home> yuck, cygwin python is teh evil.
33 03:07 < bdbaddog> :)
34 03:07 < garyo-home> I made it research. Next?
35 03:07 < GregNoel> Who gets it? Steven?
36 03:07 < bdbaddog> if you want to assign to me to research, that's fine.
37 03:07 < GregNoel> OK, done
38 03:08 < garyo-home> 1581
39 03:08 < GregNoel> P3 in 2.x?
40 03:08 < bdbaddog> sounds good to me.
41 03:08 < garyo-home> at least. This seems hard and not all that interesting.
42 03:09 < GregNoel> OK, sounds good.
43 03:09 < GregNoel> Next is 1727
44 03:09 < GregNoel> I have no clue
45 03:09 < garyo-home> omg it's in Russian.
46 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.
47 03:10 < bdbaddog> :)
48 03:10 < GregNoel> Only the first part. Steven's response is clever.
49 03:10 < bdbaddog> It may be part of a genrealized handling of long command lines for windows.
50 03:10 < bdbaddog> I'm dealing with such at one of my clients with windows build now.
51 03:11 < bdbaddog> not this specific one, but long command lines on win32.
52 03:11 < garyo-home> 800 is also about long lines.
53 03:12 < GregNoel> It's assigned to sbaranov, not a Tigris account; maybe Bill could contact him?
54 03:12 < garyo-home> but it's not a dup. OK to move to research for 1721?
55 03:13 < GregNoel> Yes, and 800 as well. Bill, can you take them?
56 03:13 < garyo-home> ok, will do 800 now.
57 03:13 < bdbaddog> ok. I'll make a note and try to contact the filer and assigned to.
58 03:13 < garyo-home> Bill, what's your tigris login?
59 03:14 < GregNoel> 1899, I think should be 0.xx or 1.0
60 03:14 < garyo-home> must be easy, right?
61 03:14 < GregNoel> Hopefully, but it seems important
62 03:15 < garyo-home> I think it's already done and the user's seeing a unicode problem. Just a guess.
63 03:15 < bdbaddog> looks like there's changes already submited.. follow the urls.
64 03:15 < garyo-home> OK I'll put it as 0.xx.
65 03:15 < bdbaddog> sounds good.
66 03:15 < GregNoel> 396
67 03:16 < garyo-home> nice enhancement but not for 1.0.
68 03:16 < GregNoel> We know that relative paths are expensive to calculate in general, but for this specific case it might be feasible.
69 03:16 < garyo-home> 1.x?
70 03:16 < GregNoel> yes
71 03:16 < bdbaddog> is that "polish" or featuer?
72 03:16 < GregNoel> and P3
73 03:16 < bdbaddog> feature ?
74 03:17 < GregNoel> yes
75 03:17 < garyo-home> sorry, what?
76 03:17 < GregNoel> Ur, I mean yes to both; it's fuzzy.
77 03:17 < garyo-home> P3 I got.
78 03:17 < garyo-home> oh I get it. I say it's a feature.
79 03:18 < bdbaddog> o.k. and not a regression, if so I'd push to 2.x
80 03:18 < garyo-home> Have to duck out for a couple of minutes. Be right back.
81 03:18 < bdbaddog> ok
82 03:19 < GregNoel> I could accept that. It comes in the category of "things that might be done while we're consolidating 1.0"
83 03:19 < bdbaddog> so file 2.x and if it gets done, cool?
84 03:20 < GregNoel> No, file 1.x and if it doesn't get done, push to 2.x
85 03:20 < bdbaddog> :D
86 03:20 < bdbaddog> I see we have opposite approaches..
87 03:20 < bdbaddog> This is a would be nice, but not a must have, right?
88 03:20 < GregNoel> Maybe make it P4 so it's an obvious candidate
89 03:21 < GregNoel> Gary, you seem to have the deciding opinion; are you back?
90 03:22 < bdbaddog> That's just the approach I use on commercial projects. Works pretty well.
91 03:22 < GregNoel> In the meantime, 1420 has two competing patches; maybe 1.x P3?
92 03:22 < garyo-home> ok sorry, here I am
93 03:22 < garyo-home> what's up?
94 03:23 < GregNoel> Bill, promise them less and surprise them?
95 03:23 < GregNoel> Gary, scroll back; you have a decision.
96 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.
97 03:23 < garyo-home> We're on 396, right? It's 1.x vs 2.x?
98 03:24 < GregNoel> yes
99 03:24 < bdbaddog> Gary - basically if it's a would be nice do we push to the next further out marker.
100 03:24 < bdbaddog> versus a must have.
101 03:24 < garyo-home> Looks like a would-be-nice to me.
102 03:24 < GregNoel> In FOSS, it's not as bad to get bumped
103 03:24 < garyo-home> Right, someone can always submit a patch.
104 03:25 < garyo-home> I'm going to put it in 2.x, P3. You guys start the next one.
105 03:25 < bdbaddog> o.k. thanks.
106 03:26 < GregNoel> With two patches, I say 1.x P3
107 03:26 < garyo-home> Oh yeah, this is a good one. People get bit by this.
108 03:26 < bdbaddog> basically just needs some tests?
109 03:26 < GregNoel> I haven't read the patches.
110 03:26 < garyo-home> Greg, you've looked at this. 1.x P2?
111 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.
112 03:27 < GregNoel> 1.x P3, but I'd buy P2
113 03:27 < garyo-home> ok done.
114 03:27 < garyo-home> 1461
115 03:28 < GregNoel> 1461, no clue
116 03:28 < GregNoel> Bypass and ask Steven when he shows?
117 03:28 < garyo-home> ancient. Don't even know if it would still happen. Get more info?
118 03:28 < jrandall> just tried it, still happens
119 03:28 < GregNoel> yes
120 03:28 < garyo-home> jrandall: you're fast!
121 03:29 < garyo-home> would you make a note?
122 03:29 < GregNoel> Hi, jrandall, glad to have you aboard
123 03:29 < jrandall> cheated - went ahead on that as I was curious :)
124 03:29 < jrandall> hello!
125 03:29 < garyo-home> ok, I'll make a note to come back to 1461.
126 03:29 < GregNoel> 1849
127 03:29 < garyo-home> 1849
128 03:30 < garyo-home> No Java fixes (or any tool) in 1.0, I say.
129 03:30 < GregNoel> There's been some work with Java; this may be fixed. Research?
130 03:30 < bdbaddog> yup. I'll try and get ahold of the filer.
131 03:30 < garyo-home> OK. Steven already asked him for more info.
132 03:31 < GregNoel> It may be the same as 1594
133 03:31 < bdbaddog> can just send him that we'll be closing the bug if we don't hear in N days?
134 03:31 < garyo-home> right. 318 now?
135 03:31 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: ok w/ me.
136 03:31 < GregNoel> Or merge it into 1594
137 03:31 < bdbaddog> future
138 03:31 < GregNoel> 318 1.x?
139 03:31 < bdbaddog> for 318
140 03:32 < GregNoel> SCons is going to be torn up for 2.0, i18n may be reasonable to look at then
141 03:32 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: can you take both 1594 & 1849, or should I merge them now?
142 03:32 < garyo-home> Greg: right, no i18n now.
143 03:33 < bdbaddog> sure. 1594 and 1849
144 03:33 < GregNoel> It's not clear they're the same issue, but probably.
145 03:33 < bdbaddog> Should I modify 1594 then?
146 03:33 < GregNoel> your choice. I tend to merge with the earliest.
147 03:33 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: if you don't mind.
148 03:33 < bdbaddog> done.
149 03:34 < garyo-home> ok, 331
150 03:34 < GregNoel> not i18n now, but maybe look at it for 2.0, so 1.x
151 03:34 < garyo-home> 331 -> 2.0
152 03:34 < bdbaddog> yup
153 03:35 < GregNoel> 2.x, there's no 2.0
154 03:35 < garyo-home> 331 done.
155 03:35 < bdbaddog> 340 future
156 03:35 < GregNoel> ditto
157 03:35 < garyo-home> yup.
158 03:35 < bdbaddog> would be cool though..
159 03:35 < GregNoel> 345 future
160 03:35 < bdbaddog> summer of code.. ;)
161 03:36 < garyo-home> 345 done. 359?
162 03:36 < bdbaddog> future
163 03:36 < GregNoel> future
164 03:36 < garyo-home> Someone was interested in jython. But future I say.
165 03:37 < GregNoel> summer of code
166 03:37 < bdbaddog> SOC. yes.
167 03:37 < garyo-home> I put that in the comment.
168 03:37 < bdbaddog> 362 2.x ?
169 03:37 < GregNoel> I've got it as a note; 359 was already there; I'll add 345.
170 03:37 < garyo-home> None of 362 seems at all important to me. 2.x if ever.
171 03:38 < GregNoel> 362 2.x
172 03:38 < bdbaddog> 2.x
173 03:38 < bdbaddog> 388 2.x that is.
174 03:38 < garyo-home> offtopic: it is annoying I have to enter a comment on each change.
175 03:38 < GregNoel> 388 2.x
176 03:38 < garyo-home> 388: agreed.
177 03:39 < GregNoel> just make a list and do a mass change afterward
178 03:39 < GregNoel> or one mass change for each category
179 03:39 < bdbaddog> 389 2.x
180 03:39 < GregNoel> 389 future
181 03:39 < garyo-home> I"ve never tried mass change, but if it works I'll do that.
182 03:40 < garyo-home> 389 is our stuff, Greg.
183 03:40 < bdbaddog> yup.
184 03:40 < GregNoel> take Tony off 389; he's not active any more exept as a moderator
185 03:40 < GregNoel> Gary, yes, but we have no clue about the schedule for it yet
186 03:41 < bdbaddog> but sometime, so I think it's o.k with 2.x
187 03:41 < garyo-home> right. I'll put it there.
188 03:41 < GregNoel> 583 is SoC, also TaskmasterNG
189 03:41 < bdbaddog> o.k. cool. so 2.x ?
190 03:42 < GregNoel> yes
191 03:42 < garyo-home> I don't think 583 can really be done properly.
192 03:42 < garyo-home> 583 -> future
193 03:42 < bdbaddog> fine by me. 2.x or future, or never.
194 03:42 < GregNoel> it can be done, and if you intend to include it from the begining, it's not hard
195 03:42 < GregNoel> 2.x, give it to me
196 03:43 < garyo-home> ok.
197 03:43 < bdbaddog> 590 2.x
198 03:43 < garyo-home> I think 590 is done, I'm closing it. It's mine anyway.
199 03:43 < GregNoel> 590 is INVALID; Gary, you want to do the honors?
200 03:44 < GregNoel> Geeze, everybody types faster than me
201 03:44 < bdbaddog> :)
202 03:44 < GregNoel> 1295
203 03:44 < jrandall> I put a note in this one. I give good odds it's fixed already
204 03:45 < GregNoel> Maybe 1.x, but I could be persuaded
205 03:45 < garyo-home> research, then either already done or 1.x?
206 03:45 < bdbaddog> if it's not fixed, push to 2.0
207 03:45 < bdbaddog> research. yes.
208 03:45 < garyo-home> done
209 03:45 < GregNoel> research by jrandall. see what you get?
210 03:45 < jrandall> OK
211 03:46 < GregNoel> 1413, no clue
212 03:46 < bdbaddog> this is when you isntall as not an administrator.
213 03:46 < garyo-home> duh.
214 03:46 < bdbaddog> and you are presented option to select install dir, 90% sure of that.
215 03:46 < garyo-home> 2.x or future?
216 03:47 < bdbaddog> or roll in with the stand alone.
217 03:47 < bdbaddog> yes. 2.x
218 03:47 < bdbaddog> New installer would be good in 2.x timeframe.
219 03:47 < GregNoel> "standalone" one word
220 03:47 < garyo-home> +1 on new installer someday.
221 03:47 < bdbaddog> where x != 0
222 03:47 < garyo-home> ok.
223 03:48 < GregNoel> 1423
224 03:48 < garyo-home> 1423: need a test case.
225 03:48 < bdbaddog> I think this is like running .configure, and not make distclean..
226 03:49 < bdbaddog> and expecting it to regenerate cached values ?
227 03:49 < GregNoel> 2.x possibly 1.x
228 03:49 < garyo-home> blkdog: it's actually happened before to me, I think there is a bug in there somewhere.
229 03:49 < bdbaddog> 2.x
230 03:49 < garyo-home> ok, 2.x it is
231 03:49 < GregNoel> 1429, 2.x maybe 1.x
232 03:50 < bdbaddog> 2.x
233 03:50 < garyo-home> sorry guys, another interruption, please keep going.
234 03:50 < GregNoel> There's an easy workaround, so 2.x
235 03:50 < bdbaddog> yup.
236 03:51 < GregNoel> 1752 may be fixed
237 03:51 < bdbaddog> gimme a sec. I'll try it.
238 03:51 < GregNoel> OK, research by Bill it is.
239 03:51 < GregNoel> If nothing else, it's probably a dup of 1699
240 03:52 < bdbaddog> testcase doesn't work.
241 03:52 < bdbaddog> in latest svn.
242 03:52 < bdbaddog> scons: Reading SConscript files ...
243 03:52 < bdbaddog> TypeError: Clean() takes exactly 3 arguments (2 given):
244 03:52 < bdbaddog> File "/home/bdbaddog/1752/SConstruct", line 5:
245 03:52 < bdbaddog> Clean("install")
246 03:52 < bdbaddog> File "/home/bdbaddog/tools/stow/scons-svn/lib/scons-0.97.0d20080317/SCons/Script/SConscript.py", line 596:
247 03:52 < bdbaddog> return apply(method, args, kw)
248 03:52 < bdbaddog> research.
249 03:52 < GregNoel> env.Clean()
250 03:52 < bdbaddog> I'll take a look at it.
251 03:53 < GregNoel> Also 1699?
252 03:53 < bdbaddog> TypeError: Clean() takes exactly 3 arguments (2 given):
253 03:53 < garyo-home> ok sorry about that, glad I don't work from home. :-)
254 03:54 < garyo-home> 1429 -> 2.x, 1752 -> research, right?
255 03:54 < GregNoel> Except that she's offered pizza, I'd have tied down my wife...
256 03:54 < GregNoel> And 1699 may be a dup of 1752
257 03:54 < garyo-home> I don't believe that for a second, Greg.
258 03:54 < bdbaddog> I'll research 1699 and 1752
259 03:55 < garyo-home> OK, can you make the mods to those issues then?
260 03:55 < bdbaddog> yup
261 03:55 < GregNoel> That's why I said "may"
262 03:55 < GregNoel> 1848 is multiple bugs
263 03:56 < GregNoel> I suggest Steven to research. He's not here, so he can't complain.
264 03:56 < garyo-home> No, I know what 1848 is, it's an alias that conflicts with a filename.
265 03:57 < garyo-home> Workaround is to use Alias('hello') where you mean the alias.
266 03:57 < garyo-home> Or File() or the builder result where you mean the file.
267 03:57 < GregNoel> Yes, but there are multiple problems in the bug
268 03:57 < garyo-home> They're all the same, I think. I'll take it as research.
269 03:57 < GregNoel> ok
270 03:58 < GregNoel> 1922 is resolved
271 03:58 < garyo-home> done.
272 03:58 < bdbaddog> my list just went away,... next is gone.
273 03:58 < garyo-home> 1526 I think
274 03:58 < GregNoel> 1526 should be 0.xx {;-}
275 03:59 < bdbaddog> ok .got it again.
276 03:59 < bdbaddog> feature right?
277 03:59 < garyo-home> sure Greg.
278 03:59 < garyo-home> :-)
279 03:59 < jrandall> has the most votes you know :)
280 03:59 < GregNoel> basis for many other features
281 03:59 < bdbaddog> It does sound useful though..
282 03:59 < bdbaddog> but I think 2.x
283 04:00 < GregNoel> including new configure, Gary
284 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?
285 04:00 < GregNoel> K
286 04:00 < bdbaddog> 2.x or punt til steven gets online..
287 04:01 < garyo-home> made a note to ask him about it
288 04:01 < bdbaddog> k next.
289 04:01 < GregNoel> 1839
290 04:02 < garyo-home> I've seen this too, on a 2-cpu linux box.
291 04:02 < GregNoel> I know Steven worried about this, but it looks like INVALID to me.
292 04:02 < bdbaddog> do you need to eat up all the available processes to get this?
293 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)
294 04:02 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: no I don't think so.
295 04:03 < bdbaddog> how do you reproduce the problem?
296 04:03 < garyo-home> I thought it was the subprocess returning so fast the wait logic got confused.
297 04:03 < garyo-home> repro: a big build with lots of stuff going on, and -jN.
298 04:03 < bdbaddog> on linux?
299 04:04 < garyo-home> Yes. Actually looking at the last comment, maybe my bug was different? I don't use backtick.
300 04:04 < bdbaddog> is there a known fix?
301 04:04 < garyo-home> In any case we can't do anything about it for 1.0.
302 04:04 < bdbaddog> yeah. that's what I'm thinking.
303 04:04 < bdbaddog> 2.x
304 04:05 < garyo-home> Not for mine, I rerun the build. And it hasn't happened to me in a long time.
305 04:05 < garyo-home> ok 1839 -> 2.x.
306 04:05 < garyo-home> 1633
307 04:05 < GregNoel> 1633 just showed up on the mailing list again today, 1.x?
308 04:06 < garyo-home> Why is this not the same as Depends?
309 04:06 < GregNoel> If you don't have a scanner that works, what's the workaround?
310 04:06 < bdbaddog> punt til steven comes online, looks like he's worked on it a bit.
311 04:06 < GregNoel> No, it's not a dependency; it's like an #include in a source file
312 04:07 < garyo-home> So the dependency gets scanned, that's the behavior that differs?
313 04:07 < GregNoel> What scanner for Te
314 04:07 < GregNoel> What scanner for TeX was that?
315 04:07 < bdbaddog> I'm sure Steven can explain when he gets online..
316 04:08 < garyo-home> ok, I'll defer it. But we still aren't going to do it for 1.0.
317 04:08 < bdbaddog> true.
318 04:08 < GregNoel> I'd say 1.x
319 04:08 < bdbaddog> 2.x ping Steven Later for details?
320 04:08 < GregNoel> 1.x
321 04:08 < bdbaddog> feature. not a bug. I'd say 2.x
322 04:09 < garyo-home> It's on the "revisit with Steven" list for now, let's move on.
323 04:09 < GregNoel> 1086
324 04:09 < garyo-home> 1086 is batch builders, a wonderful idea for 2.x.
325 04:09 < bdbaddog> 2.x
326 04:09 < GregNoel> It's a SoC; 2.x is fine.
327 04:09 < bdbaddog> It will make one of my clients very happy.
328 04:09 < garyo-home> :-)
329 04:10 < GregNoel> decision?
330 04:10 < bdbaddog> 1671 looks like part of the great tool refactoring?
331 04:10 < bdbaddog> 2.x for 1086
332 04:10 < garyo-home> 1671 is a toolchain one, yes.
333 04:10 < bdbaddog> 1671 2.x
334 04:10 < garyo-home> 2.x for 1086 and 1671.
335 04:10 < GregNoel> Steven should have something to say
336 04:10 < garyo-home> (or maybe pre-2.0, it's important -- but not 1.0)
337 04:11 < bdbaddog> should make a note to wrap up the tool realated bugs into one umbrella to tie them together.
338 04:11 < garyo-home> 1671 I mean
339 04:11 < GregNoel> 1.x?
340 04:11 < GregNoel> and revisit?
341 04:11 < bdbaddog> 2.x
342 04:11 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: I created a "tool" subcategory this morning for this.
343 04:11 < bdbaddog> O.k. cool.
344 04:12 < GregNoel> decision?
345 04:12 < garyo-home> ok 1671 is 1.x for now so we are forced to think about it then.
346 04:12 < bdbaddog> I'd disagree.
347 04:12 < GregNoel> Oh, 1671 is a dup of 1007, so it's been around
348 04:12 < bdbaddog> feels like a feature. better tool messaging.
349 04:13 < GregNoel> feels like a bug if it bites you.
350 04:13 < bdbaddog> :)
351 04:13 < bdbaddog> but it never worked before..
352 04:13 < garyo-home> Greg's right about that, but the right way to fix it is to refactor (feature)
353 04:13 < GregNoel> Even worse, it leads to silent failures
354 04:14 < bdbaddog> I'm voting 2.x, we can punt til Steven's online to get his opinion and move on.
355 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.
356 04:14 < GregNoel> Yes, revisit with Steven
357 04:14 -!- stevenknight
358 04:14 < bdbaddog> speaking of the devil...;)
359 04:14 < stevenknight> yo
360 04:14 < garyo-home> Hi Steven!
361 04:14 < bdbaddog> 17 in rush hour fun I guess.
362 04:15 < GregNoel> Uh, it isn't our stuff; this is different
363 04:15 < GregNoel> Ho, Steven
364 04:15 < stevenknight> no, it was the fact that SJC now has all their restaurants and stuff behind the security gate
365 04:15 < stevenknight> didn't last time I was there
366 04:15 < stevenknight> lost time parking, going in, etc.
367 04:15 < stevenknight> gah
368 04:15 < bdbaddog> oh boy.
369 04:15 < bdbaddog> well now for something stress free..
370 04:15 < bdbaddog> :)
371 04:15 < garyo-home> ah well. We have a short list of deferred issues for you, otherwise we're up to 1912.
372 04:15 < stevenknight> cool
373 04:16 < garyo-home> Can we do the deferred ones now?
374 04:16 < stevenknight> i'm okay with it
375 04:16 < garyo-home> 1461, 1526, 1633, 1671
376 04:16 < bdbaddog> may as well. they'll be higher priorities than later ones.
377 04:17 < GregNoel> 1461
378 04:17 < garyo-home> 1461: wtf? 1526: entry pt refactor 1633 and 1671: dispute re: 1.x or 2.x.
379 04:17 < garyo-home> yes, 1461 first.
380 04:17 < garyo-home> Steven: none of us understand this one.
381 04:18 < stevenknight> i seem to have net lag to tigris.org
382 04:18 < stevenknight> hang on...
383 04:18 < GregNoel> Er, I understand 1461, but I don't know how hard the fix is
384 04:18 < garyo-home> ok
385 04:19 < stevenknight> 1461: probably pretty hairy
386 04:19 < garyo-home> Using mkdir in an action is not elementary
387 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
388 04:20 < garyo-home> ok, so 1461 -> 2.x?
389 04:20 < stevenknight> but they also get treated differently if they're created as part of making room for some other target
390 04:20 < stevenknight> yeah, no reason to hold 1.0 for it
391 04:20 < stevenknight> probably won't happen
392 04:20 < stevenknight> by then
393 04:20 < garyo-home> (Steven, I'm making a list of changes which I'll apply in batch to Tigris later.)
394 04:20 < stevenknight> (cool, thanks)
395 04:20 < stevenknight> 1526:
396 04:20 < garyo-home> ok, 1526 then
397 04:20 < stevenknight> net lag...
398 04:21 < garyo-home> Greg wants scons entry points refactored
399 04:21 < bdbaddog> I was sugguesting 2.x rather than 1.x
400 04:21 * GregNoel is staying mum
401 04:21 < jrandall> *** as is jrandall
402 04:22 < bdbaddog> reasoning being, feels like a feature, so push to 2.x
403 04:22 < stevenknight> ah, 1526...!
404 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
405 04:23 < stevenknight> but I lost it quite awhile ago
406 04:23 < GregNoel> (;)
407 04:23 < stevenknight> it's probably not hard if Greg and I work out the specifics
408 04:23 < stevenknight> THAT would be the trick... :-)
409 04:23 < bdbaddog> :)
410 04:23 < GregNoel> I'm willing
411 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?
412 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.
413 04:24 < garyo-home> Not 1.0, but 1.x?
414 04:24 < GregNoel> 1.x
415 04:24 < stevenknight> 1.x
416 04:24 < garyo-home> ok, and if it doesn't get done, then no big deal.
417 04:24 < GregNoel> yes
418 04:24 < stevenknight> 1633: (pre-loaded while working on the others)
419 04:24 < GregNoel> Includes() is not Depends()
420 04:25 < stevenknight> this looked like it was going to be easy, but started getting hairy
421 04:25 < garyo-home> ... because it scans the dependency.
422 04:25 < stevenknight> right
423 04:25 < stevenknight> Joseph's last suggestion should be tried
424 04:25 < garyo-home> I say feature therefore 2.x.
425 04:25 < garyo-home> steven: well, that would be easy...
426 04:25 < GregNoel> I saw it as something that acted as if it were scanned in.
427 04:26 < stevenknight> hmm, yeah, 2.x
428 04:26 < garyo-home> ok, done.
429 04:26 < stevenknight> it's another one I'd really like to get in, too
430 04:26 < bdbaddog> so this would be used when theres no scanner or the scanner isn't 100% ?
431 04:26 < stevenknight> but i'm trying to be good... :-)
432 04:26 < GregNoel> 1671 and 1007
433 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
434 04:26 < bdbaddog> 1671 is another feels like a feature, it's not a regression,
435 04:26 < stevenknight> if you know the dependency, it would let you just hard-wire it
436 04:27 < stevenknight> 1671: boy, i'm torn on this one
437 04:27 < stevenknight> i hoped the ToolInitializer stuff would permit this
438 04:27 < garyo-home> The right way to fix it is the toolchain stuff Greg and I are working on.
439 04:27 < GregNoel> Er, not the same
440 04:27 < garyo-home> It's important but nontrivial.
441 04:27 < bdbaddog> Greg and Gary are doing tool refactor, but that's unlikely to be in the next month right?
442 04:27 < stevenknight> it really sucks that we only give people an impenetrable AttributeError in this case
443 04:27 < stevenknight> but ToolInitializer drags in a whole bunch of other issues
444 04:28 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: not next month for sure.
445 04:28 < GregNoel> This isn't Tool refactor!
446 04:28 * stevenknight agrees w/garyo-home re: nontrivial
447 04:28 < garyo-home> Greg: it's not the tool refactor but that would fix it, right?
448 04:28 < GregNoel> no
449 04:28 < stevenknight> does it or doesn't it line up with the toolchain stuff? Gary seemed to say yes but Greg disagreed?
450 04:28 < bdbaddog> I say put to 2.x, when it can be part of the tool solution?
451 04:29 < stevenknight> what are we treating as the difference between 1.x and 2.x?
452 04:29 < garyo-home> ok Greg, maybe toolchain doesn't *always* fix it, story too long to be told here & now.
453 04:29 < GregNoel> 1.x should be done before 2.0, in some order
454 04:29 < stevenknight> that's it? then i'd vote 1.x on this one
455 04:29 < bdbaddog> 1.x is polish on 1.0, 2.x should be new features.
456 04:30 < GregNoel> "be flexible"
457 04:30 < garyo-home> what bdbaddog said.
458 04:30 < stevenknight> yeah, polish
459 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
460 "polishing" the release.
461 04:30 < stevenknight> agreed re: flexible, too
462 04:30 < garyo-home> ok, so?
463 04:30 < stevenknight> so i'd vote 1.x, and we can alway reclassify 2.x if that looks non-viable, yes?
464 04:30 < GregNoel> yes
465 04:31 < stevenknight> okay, 1.x
466 04:31 < garyo-home> usually I'd say push the feature out, but this one bites *so* many people.
467 04:31 < bdbaddog> I'll still vote 2.x, but defer to greater numbers.
468 04:31 < stevenknight> right
469 04:31 < garyo-home> 1.x it is then.
470 04:31 < garyo-home> Now we're back to the regular list.
471 04:31 < GregNoel> 1913, C#
472 04:31 < garyo-home> 1912 I think?
473 04:31 < GregNoel> oops, 1912
474 04:31 < bdbaddog> 2.x
475 04:31 < garyo-home> 2.x
476 04:31 < GregNoel> 2.x
477 04:32 < stevenknight> we're going in top-voted order?
478 04:32 < stevenknight> 2.x
479 04:32 < GregNoel> "be flexible" consensus
480 04:32 < GregNoel> 1917 is a dup and should be gone
481 04:32 < GregNoel> 589?
482 04:33 < bdbaddog> 2.x
483 04:33 < garyo-home> steven: order is priority, go to http://www.scons.org/wiki/BugParty & click there.
484 04:33 < garyo-home> 589 is next, yes?
485 04:33 < bdbaddog> yes.
486 04:33 < GregNoel> 2.x
487 04:33 < bdbaddog> or future.. needs python 2.3
488 04:34 < GregNoel> That can be retrofitted, I think
489 04:34 < garyo-home> ok, 2.x then?
490 04:34 < bdbaddog> yup.
491 04:34 < GregNoel> 1228
492 04:34 < GregNoel> Another new config issue
493 04:34 < garyo-home> did I miss 1217?
494 04:35 < GregNoel> dup
495 04:35 < garyo-home> ok
496 04:35 < bdbaddog> 2.x
497 04:35 < garyo-home> 2.x tools
498 04:35 < bdbaddog> 1228 2.x that is (I'd vote for it.. )
499 04:35 < GregNoel> I'll add a "new config" keyword for these issues
500 04:36 < stevenknight> 1228: 2.x
501 04:36 < garyo-home> don't call it config though please, how about toolchain
502 04:36 < GregNoel> 1938
503 04:36 < GregNoel> ok
504 04:37 < bdbaddog> Jim u going to chime in on this one? ;)
505 04:37 < GregNoel> I've looked at this; it's a grotty problem
506 04:37 < jrandall> ay e- would love to see this fixed if possible
507 04:37 < bdbaddog> o.k. ugly problem either 2.x or 1.x
508 04:37 < bdbaddog> though it looks like its a regression.
509 04:38 < garyo-home> we need a milestone for "try for 1.x else 2.x"
510 04:38 < stevenknight> still loading for me: this is how multiple targets get the same MD5 in the cache, yes?
511 04:38 < bdbaddog> I though all 2.x's would get tried for 1.x..
512 04:38 < GregNoel> Gary, 1.x P4
513 04:38 < GregNoel> or even P5
514 04:38 < garyo-home> 1.x p4 I can live with.
515 04:38 < stevenknight> ah, no, just got it up
516 04:38 < GregNoel> Bill, only if we run out of 1.x
517 04:39 < jrandall> this makes it hard to use implicit-cache, which is a bummer
518 04:39 < bdbaddog> exactly.
519 04:39 < stevenknight> 1938: 1.x
520 04:39 < garyo-home> ok done.
521 04:39 < bdbaddog> 417 future.
522 04:39 < GregNoel> 417
523 04:39 < garyo-home> 417 (then 1465, Steven)
524 04:39 < stevenknight> 417 future
525 04:39 < GregNoel> future
526 04:39 < garyo-home> future ok, done.
527 04:40 < GregNoel> if we keep it at all
528 04:40 < garyo-home> 1465?
529 04:40 < GregNoel> no clue
530 04:40 < stevenknight> 1465: 1.x
531 04:40 < garyo-home> This is a tool thing, it's nice, not too hard but should be 2.x.
532 04:40 < bdbaddog> 2.x
533 04:40 < stevenknight> unless someone else knows that patch better and wants to take it on
534 04:40 < garyo-home> I'll take this one, I do this kind of thing in real life
535 04:41 < GregNoel> 1678?
536 04:41 < stevenknight> for 1.x?
537 04:41 < GregNoel> yes
538 04:41 < stevenknight> k
539 04:41 < GregNoel> There's a wiki page on it; we should talk
540 04:41 < stevenknight> 1678: how close does Maciej's stuff bring us to this?
541 04:42 < stevenknight> I think it comes in whenever that does
542 04:42 < garyo-home> ok if you guys say so. Sounds hard to me.
543 04:42 -!- Paf
544 04:42 < stevenknight> any consensus discussion about that?
545 04:42 < bdbaddog> 2.x
546 04:42 < Paf> hi
547 04:42 < GregNoel> 1.x
548 04:42 < garyo-home> I think that has to be 2.x, but early in that cycle.
549 04:42 < stevenknight> hey Paf
550 04:42 < garyo-home> Hi Paf
551 04:42 < GregNoel> 1.x P4?
552 04:43 < stevenknight> GregNoeL; 1.x for 1678, or for all of Maciej's stuff?
553 04:43 < garyo-home> Are we talking about 1678 or Maciej's work? 1678-> 1.x ok with me.
554 04:43 < GregNoel> 1678
555 04:43 < garyo-home> maciej has to be 2.x though, agreed?
556 04:43 < GregNoel> Maciej didn't do anything with cross-run retention
557 04:43 < garyo-home> ok, 1678 -> 1.x.
558 04:43 < stevenknight> is it separable? i'm concerned we create a mechanism to store --srcdir and then have to redo it when we get all the automake model (Maciej)
559 04:44 < stevenknight> ok, 1678: 1.x
560 04:44 < GregNoel> No, he assumed recalc every time
561 04:44 * stevenknight nods
562 04:44 < GregNoel> 1699 is a dup
563 04:44 < garyo-home> of what?
564 04:44 < bdbaddog> 1752
565 04:44 < GregNoel> of 1752
566 04:44 < garyo-home> ok, noted.
567 04:44 < garyo-home> 967?
568 04:45 < GregNoel> 967?
569 04:45 < GregNoel> toolchain, future?
570 04:45 < garyo-home> maybe, even if.
571 04:45 < stevenknight> future, even if
572 04:45 < bdbaddog> future
573 04:45 < garyo-home> ok, future.
574 04:46 < GregNoel> 1424, INVALID?
575 04:46 < stevenknight> 1242: future?
576 04:46 < bdbaddog> 1242 2.x
577 04:46 < garyo-home> this isn't really an issue report though.
578 04:46 < GregNoel> There's no issue
579 04:46 < garyo-home> I'm with Greg.
580 04:46 < stevenknight> i can go w/2.x
581 04:46 < stevenknight> ???
582 04:46 < bdbaddog> qt4 support's not in scons as of now.
583 04:46 < bdbaddog> only qt3
584 04:46 < GregNoel> Drop it, or add an issue to it
585 04:47 < garyo-home> I'm sure there's another qt4 issue, if not I'll add a better one.
586 04:47 < GregNoel> OK
587 04:47 < bdbaddog> qt4 2.x
588 04:47 < stevenknight> net lag bringing it up: I take it there's no description on 1242
589 04:47 < bdbaddog> I'm fine with dropping bad bugs
590 04:47 < stevenknight> as long as we track qt4 somewhere, sure INVALID 1242
591 04:47 < bdbaddog> its a wide open request for qt4 support
592 04:47 < stevenknight> 2.x is fine
593 04:48 < GregNoel> 1435, future
594 04:48 < bdbaddog> 2.x
595 04:48 < bdbaddog> or future.
596 04:48 * GregNoel short pause for pizza
597 04:48 < bdbaddog> needs tests and fleshing out right?
598 04:48 < stevenknight> 1435: 2.x
599 04:48 < stevenknight> yeah
600 04:48 < bdbaddog> has real value.
601 04:49 < stevenknight> i hear requests for pre-compiled header support a lot
602 04:49 < garyo-home> yes, I don't think that's the right approach though.
603 04:49 < garyo-home> batch builder would save more build time than pch
604 04:49 < garyo-home> but both are good.
605 04:49 < garyo-home> 2.x?
606 04:49 < stevenknight> agreed, batch is more important
607 04:49 < bdbaddog> 2.x
608 04:49 < stevenknight> 2.x
609 04:49 < garyo-home> ok, done.
610 04:50 < GregNoel> 1646, future or 2.x
611 04:50 < stevenknight> 1676: dunno
612 04:50 < garyo-home> includes a patch: 2.x?
613 04:50 < GregNoel> did we lose 1646?
614 04:50 < bdbaddog> patch has some tests.
615 04:50 < bdbaddog> 2.x
616 04:51 < bdbaddog> for me it goes 1435 then 1676
617 04:51 < garyo-home> Greg: 1646 is way down on my list
618 04:51 < stevenknight> i see 1242-1435-1676-138
619 04:51 < GregNoel> votes must have changed since I pulled my list
620 04:51 < garyo-home> 1676 -> 2.x, done.
621 04:51 < bdbaddog> :) community at wrok.
622 04:52 < GregNoel> 138?
623 04:52 < bdbaddog> future
624 04:52 < GregNoel> future?
625 04:52 < stevenknight> 138: 2.x or future
626 04:52 < garyo-home> future
627 04:52 < GregNoel> 623?
628 04:53 < GregNoel> no clue
629 04:53 < garyo-home> this is done, it's called CFLAGS iirc
630 04:53 < garyo-home> Steven: isn't that right?
631 04:53 < GregNoel> I don't think so
632 04:53 < garyo-home> (he wants cflags that are NOT applied to shccflags)
633 04:53 < bdbaddog> don't think so.
634 04:53 < stevenknight> CFLAGS will apply to both static and shared
635 04:53 < bdbaddog> 2.x
636 04:53 < stevenknight> right
637 04:53 < GregNoel> It's for options like -PIC or v.v.
638 04:54 < garyo-home> I'm sure you're wrong but can't prove it right now, I'll mark it 2.0 but will check later.
639 04:54 < stevenknight> 2.x
640 04:54 < GregNoel> mark it research then
641 04:54 < stevenknight> if someone contributes a patch for it it could be earlier
642 04:54 < GregNoel> 1007 is a dup of 1671
643 04:54 < bdbaddog> you beat me to it.. ;)
644 04:54 < bdbaddog> dup
645 04:55 < GregNoel> 1360
646 04:55 < GregNoel> assign to Gary or me
647 04:55 < garyo-home> agreed, 2.x?
648 04:55 < GregNoel> he's been working on the package, but I've been fiddling with tarfile
649 04:55 < bdbaddog> 2.x
650 04:56 < GregNoel> 2.x
651 04:56 < GregNoel> (needs Python 2.2)
652 04:56 < stevenknight> 2.x
653 04:56 < GregNoel> 1523??
654 04:56 < GregNoel> no clue from me
655 04:56 < bdbaddog> future or 2.x
656 04:57 < garyo-home> I'm not a msvs guy
657 04:57 < stevenknight> 2.x, give it to me
658 04:57 < garyo-home> ok
659 04:57 < GregNoel> 1539, needs coordination with ParseFlags
660 04:57 < bdbaddog> 2.x ?
661 04:57 < stevenknight> ??? seemed like it would be just analogous to $CFLAGS
662 04:58 < GregNoel> Yes, that part, but ParseFlags should recognize them and distribute
663 04:58 < garyo-home> not just flags though, needs to be a separate builder.
664 04:58 < GregNoel> maybe it's a separate bug
665 04:58 < bdbaddog> yes builder, yes separate bug for parse flags
666 04:58 < garyo-home> anyway I say 2.x; we're building ObjC/ObjC++ here just fine w/o this.
667 04:58 < stevenknight> oh, Objective C generates different object files?
668 04:58 < stevenknight> shows how much i know
669 04:59 < garyo-home> no, same obj file but different compiler.
670 04:59 < bdbaddog> and flags.
671 04:59 < GregNoel> Different language
672 04:59 < stevenknight> i wouldn't make that a separate builder, though
673 04:59 < stevenknight> Object() builds objects from C and Fortran, so why not also Objective C
674 04:59 < garyo-home> at least it needs OBJCCOM, OBJCXXCOM, etc.
675 05:00 < garyo-home> and suffix support
676 05:00 < bdbaddog> 2.x. punt discussion for later?
677 05:00 < garyo-home> yes.
678 05:00 < stevenknight> agree that it needs separate variables
679 05:00 < stevenknight> definitely bigger issues than 1.x
680 05:00 < stevenknight> maybe even future?
681 05:00 < garyo-home> 's not *that* hard.
682 05:00 < stevenknight> no, 2.x -- changed my mind
683 05:00 < garyo-home> anyway, on to 1669
684 05:00 < stevenknight> yeah
685 05:01 < GregNoel> 1594 is probably a dup
686 05:01 < bdbaddog> I get 1669 next
687 05:01 < GregNoel> oops, am I out of order again?
688 05:01 < stevenknight> 1669: did you guys cover any other mingw issues?
689 05:01 < garyo-home> I have 1669, 1738, 1890 next
690 05:02 < stevenknight> ditto: 1669-1738-1890
691 05:02 < stevenknight> and that covers all of them that i have with at least 1 vote
692 05:02 < garyo-home> 1699 seems trivial, why not do it
693 05:02 < bdbaddog> just needs some or a test right?
694 05:03 < stevenknight> hmm, that might even already be fixed, now that i look at it
695 05:03 < garyo-home> yes. (I'd say LDMODULECOM = $SHLINKCOM instead of point both to the same action, but whatever.)
696 05:03 < garyo-home> so 0.xx?
697 05:03 < stevenknight> sure, 0.xx
698 05:03 < bdbaddog> 0.xx
699 05:03 < GregNoel> works for me
700 05:03 < garyo-home> ok done. 1738
701 05:04 * GregNoel wait
702 05:04 < GregNoel> 1594 is a dup of the Java bug with anonymous classes; did someone clean that up?
703 05:05 < stevenknight> there's been some anonymous class clean up, but there are still problems
704 05:05 < garyo-home> I don't think I actually duped anything tonight (iirc)
705 05:05 < GregNoel> OK, I'll check later, Who got the Java bug before?
706 05:05 < bdbaddog> Greg 1594 marked reserch for me to check if same bug as 1849
707 05:06 < bdbaddog> I've got both.
708 05:06 < GregNoel> Ah, perfect, thanks. Onward!
709 05:06 < garyo-home> ok, 1738.
710 05:06 < garyo-home> ParseConfig bug?
711 05:06 < stevenknight> 1738: Greg, in your ballpark?
712 05:06 < garyo-home> 1.x perhaps?
713 05:07 < GregNoel> No, Append(dict) to a define flag
714 05:07 < stevenknight> ah
715 05:07 < GregNoel> after ParseConfig had set it up with a pseudo-list
716 05:07 < garyo-home> I thought it starts as a pseudo-list.
717 05:08 < garyo-home> Anyway, 1.x for Greg perhaps?
718 05:08 < GregNoel> I'll look at it, but I think it belongs elsehwere
719 05:08 < garyo-home> ok, you can reassign it.
720 05:08 < stevenknight> 1.x would be nice, but flexible for 2.x
721 05:08 < bdbaddog> 1.x or 2.x
722 05:08 < garyo-home> ok, I marked it as 1.x for now.
723 05:08 < GregNoel> 1890?
724 05:09 < garyo-home> that's the main tarfile one. What was the other one?
725 05:09 < garyo-home> (I mean the one that this is a dup of)
726 05:09 < garyo-home> (or is a dup of this one)
727 05:10 < GregNoel> 1360?
728 05:10 < bdbaddog> yup.
729 05:10 < garyo-home> yup, I'll mark 1360 as a dup of 1890 since 1890 is nice & clear
730 05:10 < stevenknight> 1.x?
731 05:10 < GregNoel> 1.x
732 05:11 < garyo-home> has to be 2.x since it requires newer python
733 05:11 < bdbaddog> does it get cleaner with python 2.2 or above?
734 05:11 < stevenknight> don't know how close you guys are to this one...
735 05:11 < stevenknight> okay, 2.x
736 05:11 < GregNoel> right, 2.x
737 05:11 < garyo-home> Greg was backporting tarfile.py last I knew; it would be better not to do that.
738 05:11 < garyo-home> ok, 2.x
739 05:11 < GregNoel> tarfile.py is 2.3; probably needs a little work.
740 05:12 < stevenknight> hate to jump in and out, but have to leave to drive back to SC in time for youngster's bed time
741 05:12 < bdbaddog> I'm about to turn into a pumpkin myself.
742 05:12 < garyo-home> ok, good night. I should go pretty soon too, but we've done well
743 05:12 < GregNoel> This is the last one with votes, and it's been two hours; time to quit for now?
744 05:12 < bdbaddog> sounds good.
745 05:12 < stevenknight> can one of you here the whole time capture the log and make it available?
746 05:12 < garyo-home> which one, 1890?
747 05:12 < stevenknight> yes, after 1890 they all have 0 votes
748 05:12 < bdbaddog> email it?
749 05:13 < garyo-home> I'll capture the log & email.
750 05:13 < stevenknight> cool
751 05:13 < garyo-home> um wait, I hope my irc client can do that.
752 05:13 < GregNoel> Maybe post it as a page under BugParty?
753 05:14 < stevenknight> gotta go, but this has been great
754 05:14 < garyo-home> ok, it can do it no problem. I'll post it under BugParty for reference.
755 05:14 < bdbaddog> o.k. thanks all.
756 05:14 < stevenknight> Greg, many thanks for getting it going
757 05:14 < stevenknight> and to everyone for spending the time
758 05:14 < GregNoel> Good-o; thanks to all for attendig.
759 05:14 < bdbaddog> gnight to all.
760 05:14 < garyo-home> Thanks guys!
761 05:14 < stevenknight> l8r
762 05:14 -!- stevenknight
763 05:14 -!- jrandall
764 05:15 * GregNoel is going to sleep
765
