1 16:33:12 * Pankrat (n=ludwig@dslb-088-073-195-149.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #scons
2 16:48:08 * jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1167886910.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #scons
3 16:50:29 * garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
4 16:55:36 <GregNoel> Hi, guys. Five more minutes to go...
5 16:57:22 <GregNoel> Pankrat, can you give us a preview of what you wanted to say for 235?
6 16:58:21 <Pankrat> Hi, I have counterexample which does not work correctly with implicit cache activated
7 16:58:58 <GregNoel> And you can't add a comment? What browser are you using?
8 16:58:59 <Pankrat> but I cannot post due to some error: "URL was not defined; This may indicate a bug in your browser."
9 16:59:23 <Pankrat> Firefox 2.0. I had posted an issue already, which worked
10 16:59:27 <GregNoel> And do you have cookies enabled?
11 16:59:32 <Pankrat> yes
12 17:00:02 <GregNoel> Can you mail it to one of us privately so we can add it?
13 17:00:23 <Pankrat> yes, one moment, BTW: I'm Ludwig :)
14 17:00:41 <GregNoel> Guten Abend!
15 17:01:24 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-a4dfaed744b2a8c7) has joined #scons
16 17:01:31 <stevenknight> hi all
17 17:01:36 <GregNoel> Hey
18 17:01:39 <Pankrat> Guten Abend :)
19 17:01:51 <GregNoel> Oder Morgen?
20 17:02:03 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-66-127-238-122.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
21 17:02:12 <stevenknight> hey bill
22 17:02:22 <Pankrat> both fits, mail has been sent
23 17:02:31 <bdbaddog> good evening!
24 17:02:35 <GregNoel> Anybody know where Bill and
25 17:02:46 <GregNoel> Oops, Bill's here, what about Ken?
26 17:02:49 <garyo-home> hi guys
27 17:03:19 <GregNoel> G'day!
28 17:03:40 <garyo-home> I may be a bit out of it tonight, sorry.
29 17:03:44 <garyo-home> But I'm here.
30 17:03:45 <stevenknight> does the wiki page link the spreadsheet?
31 17:03:57 <GregNoel> Yes, it should
32 17:04:16 <stevenknight> oh, duh, there it is
33 17:04:30 <garyo-home> So the agenda is starting with Greg's first issue list (391 issues)?
34 17:04:51 <GregNoel> Yes, just the first few
35 17:04:56 <garyo-home> good.
36 17:05:26 <bdbaddog> btw. I think we can chat via google docs and it would get attached to the spreadsheet.
37 17:05:33 <GregNoel> 1848 is first I believe
38 17:06:02 <GregNoel> No, it just seems to display; there's no record (that I could find)
39 17:06:08 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: that would be cool but let's try for that next time.
40 17:06:15 <bdbaddog> I thought we wer going through the 2002 and then 2003 bugs. which are in the spreadsheets first
41 17:06:17 <garyo-home> (if there are records anyway)
42 17:06:33 <GregNoel> I'm recording, I hope.
43 17:06:40 <garyo-home> me too I hope
44 17:06:45 <GregNoel> 1848?
45 17:06:46 <bdbaddog> me 3
46 17:07:21 <stevenknight> yeah, p3
47 17:07:29 <bdbaddog> I though 139 was the first bug to discuss ?
48 17:07:50 <GregNoel> No, the first few are from the issues list; no spreadsheet.
49 17:08:08 <GregNoel> Just the ones with priorities or votes.
50 17:08:11 <stevenknight> link's on the wiki page
51 17:08:16 <bdbaddog> ahh o.k. there now.
52 17:08:35 <stevenknight> damn, I wash my laptop had a bigger screen right now
53 17:09:07 <GregNoel> It seems to me that I've done what bug is about with no problems, but I looked for it and couldn't find it.
54 17:09:42 <GregNoel> I wish my second screen on my desktop was working...
55 17:10:09 <stevenknight> 1848: sort of nagging thing that shakes confidence when people hit it
56 17:10:10 <garyo-home> doesn't it cause a problem on linux because of no exe suffix?
57 17:10:12 <bdbaddog> anyone had time to try and reproduce 1848?
58 17:10:17 <stevenknight> yes re: no .exe suffix
59 17:10:26 <garyo-home> seems to me like a usual case of alias/filename conflict.
60 17:10:26 <stevenknight> yes, someone should check reproducibility
61 17:10:40 <stevenknight> if it's reproducible, what timeframe?
62 17:10:48 <stevenknight> 1.x?
63 17:10:59 <GregNoel> OK, or 2.x
64 17:11:18 <garyo-home> 2.x unless the error is really gross.
65 17:11:34 <bdbaddog> 2.x
66 17:11:40 <stevenknight> i can go with 2.x
67 17:11:40 <stevenknight> done
68 17:11:41 <garyo-home> how about 1966?
69 17:12:34 <stevenknight> i hate wading into the configure code
70 17:12:35 <bdbaddog> looks like 2 issues, doc plus functional ?
71 17:12:38 <stevenknight> yeah
72 17:12:48 <bdbaddog> maybe fix docs in 1.x, fix issue in 2.x ?
73 17:13:06 <GregNoel> good for me
74 17:13:16 <stevenknight> +1
75 17:13:19 <bdbaddog> should we split bug into two bugs then?
76 17:13:27 <stevenknight> +1
77 17:13:35 <GregNoel> Bill, will you do it?
78 17:13:46 <bdbaddog> yes.
79 17:13:52 <GregNoel> Next?
80 17:14:17 <garyo-home> 1969, looks like
81 17:14:25 <stevenknight> 1969: ugly problem
82 17:14:26 <garyo-home> i18n
83 17:14:35 <stevenknight> tip of the i18n iceberg
84 17:14:40 <GregNoel> Needs features not in 1.5.2; should be 2.x
85 17:14:50 <bdbaddog> 2.x
86 17:14:52 <garyo-home> (at least default tool setup *can* now be disabled, but that's not a good answer)
87 17:14:54 <garyo-home> 2.x
88 17:15:11 <stevenknight> sure, 2.x
89 17:15:13 <GregNoel> next?
90 17:15:20 <stevenknight> re; 1969 though
91 17:15:32 <stevenknight> no, wait, i'll update it myself
92 17:15:41 <stevenknight> he obviously didn't know you can disable the tool selection
93 17:16:05 <garyo-home> personal business, brb sorry
94 17:16:07 <garyo-home> keep going
95 17:16:30 <stevenknight> 1217
96 17:16:36 <stevenknight> (how far are we going on this list, BTW?)
97 17:16:41 <bdbaddog> 1217. anyone know the cache management stuff?
98 17:16:58 <bdbaddog> I think Greg said "aim for 2002 bugs, hope for 2003" to be handled.
99 17:16:59 <stevenknight> that'd b e me
100 17:17:16 <stevenknight> this needs a design for a mechanism, not a quick fix
101 17:17:16 <bdbaddog> this is not minor stuff is it?
102 17:17:18 <stevenknight> 2.x
103 17:17:21 <bdbaddog> 2.x
104 17:17:24 <GregNoel> ok
105 17:17:51 <GregNoel> 235 is in our 2002 list; I propose we deal with it there.
106 17:18:00 <bdbaddog> ok
107 17:18:04 <stevenknight> ok
108 17:18:17 <bdbaddog> 1959 then?
109 17:18:57 <stevenknight> i think 1.x, should be an easy fix, and it looks dumb if it doesn't work
110 17:19:03 * GregNoel stays silent, although 1959 was a very good year
111 17:19:35 <bdbaddog> 1.x unless its messy. would be my vote. :)
112 17:19:54 <stevenknight> 1.x then -- can always be pushed out if it gets bad
113 17:20:12 <GregNoel> on to 2002 then?
114 17:20:17 <bdbaddog> yup.
115 17:21:03 <bdbaddog> 139 - research
116 17:21:14 <stevenknight> research
117 17:21:39 <GregNoel> I think we should close it until there's a need
118 17:22:03 <stevenknight> hmm, now that you mention it, I'm okay with that
119 17:22:15 <GregNoel> wontfix?
120 17:22:31 <bdbaddog> if we close, will we loose a placeholder for the idea?
121 17:22:49 <stevenknight> sure -- I'd love to do better than ClearCase, but if there's no compelling user demand, that's just my ego at work
122 17:23:08 <GregNoel> {;-}
123 17:23:34 <GregNoel> consensus?
124 17:23:41 <stevenknight> bill, close it?
125 17:23:52 <bdbaddog> I guess the issue is is the bugtracker a good place to placehold ideas or should we move to a wiki page?
126 17:24:07 * stevenknight has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep")
127 17:24:15 <garyo-home> if it's just an idea, make it future
128 17:24:21 <GregNoel> future p5 then, the "will get to never" stack
129 17:24:32 <bdbaddog> o.k. that's fine with me.
130 17:24:48 <garyo-home> ok, I'm sort of here now
131 17:24:51 <garyo-home> 148?
132 17:25:19 <GregNoel> assign to Brandon for research
133 17:25:31 <bdbaddog> sounds good to me.
134 17:25:36 <garyo-home> ok
135 17:25:46 <GregNoel> done
136 17:25:49 <garyo-home> then on to 177
137 17:26:16 <garyo-home> already mostly works like he says
138 17:26:30 <bdbaddog> future. I think was the concensus
139 17:26:34 <GregNoel> yup
140 17:26:38 <garyo-home> ok by me.
141 17:26:45 <garyo-home> or close it.
142 17:27:06 <garyo-home> 193 = gsoc?
143 17:27:08 <GregNoel> 193, we have a viable proposal;
144 17:27:20 <bdbaddog> +1
145 17:27:36 <GregNoel> bypass until next time?
146 17:27:54 <garyo-home> or assume gsoc will get integrated in the 2.x timeframe and assign to that.
147 17:27:56 <bdbaddog> or after projects are accepted?
148 17:28:06 * stevenknight1 (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.131) has joined #scons
149 17:28:07 <garyo-home> anyway, make a note in the bug
150 17:28:28 <stevenknight1> i'm back, had to run get the shuttle
151 17:28:35 <garyo-home> 194? I say wontfix
152 17:28:37 <Pankrat> assign bug to soc student?
153 17:28:48 <bdbaddog> 194 wontfix.
154 17:28:48 <stevenknight1> what was the consensus about where to record long-term ideas? issues or wiki?
155 17:28:57 <garyo-home> future, p5
156 17:28:57 <bdbaddog> issues as future
157 17:29:11 <stevenknight1> okay
158 17:29:12 <stevenknight1> 194 wontfis
159 17:29:15 <stevenknight1> wontfix
160 17:29:28 <GregNoel> Pankrat, yes; you'll get some too.
161 17:29:47 <Pankrat> :)
162 17:29:52 <garyo-home> great. 219? can o' worms.
163 17:30:12 <stevenknight1> yeah
164 17:30:30 <bdbaddog> what's the benefit of being able to do this?
165 17:30:55 <GregNoel> Virtual current working directory, names are more convenient.
166 17:31:34 <garyo-home> kind of like a mini-SConscript?
167 17:31:51 <GregNoel> Um, close enough.
168 17:31:52 <stevenknight1> how about wontfix, and if someone really wants it they can contribute code
169 17:31:58 <garyo-home> +1
170 17:32:01 <stevenknight1> no one seems to be beating down the doors for it
171 17:32:01 <bdbaddog> +1
172 17:32:05 <GregNoel> ok
173 17:32:15 <GregNoel> next?
174 17:32:26 <garyo-home> 232: reasearch, then if it's true, it's an easy fix
175 17:32:37 <stevenknight1> ??? I don't think it is
176 17:32:46 <GregNoel> assign to whom?
177 17:32:52 <bdbaddog> this is when a user has same header file name in more than one dir.
178 17:32:54 <bdbaddog> right?
179 17:32:55 <stevenknight1> it's replicating a quirky behavior in MSVC's preprocessor
180 17:33:04 <garyo-home> steven: I don't think it's true either, never heard of that behavior
181 17:33:10 <garyo-home> but can't prove it.
182 17:33:21 <stevenknight1> ah, if that's the case, then it *is* easy: INVALID
183 17:33:22 <GregNoel> research?
184 17:33:37 <stevenknight1> or just close it, it's old and no one else has complained
185 17:33:40 <bdbaddog> invalid. 1 guy reported it 6 years ago.
186 17:33:48 <bdbaddog> and never complained again?
187 17:33:49 <garyo-home> i think so too.
188 17:33:51 <GregNoel> ok, invalid
189 17:34:13 <garyo-home> 243?
190 17:34:20 <Pankrat> 235 got lost?
191 17:34:21 <stevenknight1> not 235?
192 17:34:35 <garyo-home> ok, 235
193 17:34:37 <stevenknight1> 235: research
194 17:34:44 <bdbaddog> research.
195 17:34:56 <Pankrat> I have a counter example, but could not post it
196 17:35:09 <Pankrat> (I've sent it to Greg)
197 17:35:10 <garyo-home> pankrat: that's exactly what's needed.
198 17:35:14 <GregNoel> research and report
199 17:35:14 <stevenknight1> excellent
200 17:35:47 <GregNoel> I'll add it to the bug; who should research? I can take a look.
201 17:35:48 <stevenknight1> Pankrat: you couldn't add it to the issue?
202 17:36:05 <Pankrat> yes tigris complained
203 17:36:10 <GregNoel> Before you were here, he reported a problem, maybe with his browser.
204 17:36:16 <stevenknight1> do we need to change your project role?
205 17:36:19 <stevenknight1> ah
206 17:36:39 <GregNoel> I thought anyone could comment?
207 17:36:41 <stevenknight1> okay, GregNoel update and research?
208 17:36:47 <GregNoel> works.
209 17:36:54 <garyo-home> good; now 243?
210 17:37:10 <garyo-home> Greg, you said Ignores would handle this?
211 17:37:13 <stevenknight1> 243: 1.x if it's really doc
212 17:37:31 <GregNoel> 1.0 if it's really doc
213 17:37:36 <bdbaddog> +1
214 17:37:40 <stevenknight1> +1
215 17:37:41 <bdbaddog> someone research it?
216 17:37:43 <garyo-home> so that means research, then assign?
217 17:37:52 <bdbaddog> I'll research it.
218 17:38:27 <GregNoel> (Maciej uses it for his stuff; it's known to work; I'll get you a ref.)
219 17:38:39 <GregNoel> next?
220 17:38:43 <stevenknight1> oh, good
221 17:38:50 <bdbaddog> 317
222 17:38:53 <stevenknight1> 317: wontfix
223 17:39:10 <GregNoel> +1
224 17:39:11 <stevenknight1> actully, we should then make -d one of the "ignored for compatibility" options that show up at the top of the help
225 17:39:19 <stevenknight1> i'll take it
226 17:39:24 <GregNoel> ok
227 17:39:26 <garyo-home> ok
228 17:39:35 <GregNoel> 1.0 then?
229 17:39:50 <garyo-home> same w/ 323 I hope?
230 17:39:51 <stevenknight1> yeah, it's not destabilizing
231 17:40:10 <GregNoel> next?
232 17:40:11 <stevenknight1> yes re: 323, i'll take that too
233 17:40:35 <bdbaddog> 324 2.x
234 17:40:39 <stevenknight1> 2.x
235 17:40:45 <garyo-home> ok
236 17:40:47 <GregNoel> I'll take it
237 17:41:11 <garyo-home> 325 is hard I think
238 17:41:29 <stevenknight1> might be, but i think it might be easy with overriding an individual Node's Decider() function
239 17:41:44 <stevenknight1> that's not supported by an API right now, but it's architecturally possible
240 17:41:50 <GregNoel> Or just a flag to ignore all dependencies
241 17:41:58 <garyo-home> future?
242 17:42:00 <stevenknight1> future
243 17:42:02 <bdbaddog> future
244 17:42:04 <GregNoel> ok
245 17:42:06 <garyo-home> Is anyone really wanting it?
246 17:42:09 <stevenknight1> no one's asking for it
247 17:42:10 <GregNoel> what priority?
248 17:42:19 <stevenknight1> p4?
249 17:42:19 <GregNoel> p3 then
250 17:42:21 <garyo-home> p3, average
251 17:42:25 <stevenknight1> p3
252 17:42:45 <garyo-home> I'd like 326 (-p, env.Dump())
253 17:42:58 <GregNoel> ok, 1.x?
254 17:43:05 <GregNoel> or 1.0?
255 17:43:05 <garyo-home> OK, give it to me.
256 17:43:08 <garyo-home> 1.x
257 17:43:10 <stevenknight1> 1.x
258 17:43:13 <garyo-home> it's a new feature, not 1.0.
259 17:43:18 <GregNoel> ok
260 17:43:48 <stevenknight1> 327: 2.x, and i'll take it
261 17:43:55 <GregNoel> ok
262 17:43:59 <stevenknight1> unless someone else really wants in on environment stuff...
263 17:44:06 <bdbaddog> hey. I've gotta leave now. my comments are in the spreadsheets.
264 17:44:16 <stevenknight1> okay, thanks
265 17:44:19 <GregNoel> enjoy the sweat
266 17:44:36 <bdbaddog> if you have any questions about my comments which are worth waiting for shoot me an email.. otherwise enjoy the party..
267 17:44:39 <garyo-home> 329: what is -w?
268 17:45:16 <stevenknight1> make -w tells it to print the "Entering/Exiting directory" messages
269 17:45:28 <GregNoel> not needed
270 17:45:32 <stevenknight1> the only time we do that is if they specify -C on the command line
271 17:45:43 <stevenknight1> give it to me, i'll move it to "ignored for compatibility" with the others
272 17:45:49 <GregNoel> ok
273 17:46:35 <stevenknight1> 322: consensus seems good, 1.x and Jim Randall
274 17:46:42 <jrandall> aye
275 17:46:42 <GregNoel> yes
276 17:46:50 <stevenknight1> 332 i meant
277 17:46:54 <GregNoel> Hi, Jim
278 17:47:05 <jrandall> hello!
279 17:47:11 <stevenknight1> hey jim
280 17:47:17 <GregNoel> that was quick; next?
281 17:47:21 <stevenknight1> 336: wontfix...
282 17:47:33 <GregNoel> yes
283 17:47:43 <stevenknight1> 341: wontfix...
284 17:47:48 <stevenknight1> (hey, we're on a roll here...)
285 17:48:19 <GregNoel> wontfix, aye
286 17:48:28 <stevenknight1> 342: fixed
287 17:48:32 <GregNoel> the spreadsheet helps...
288 17:48:38 <GregNoel> yes
289 17:48:53 <stevenknight1> yeah
290 17:49:11 <stevenknight1> 343: future, at a minimum
291 17:49:15 <GregNoel> 343, RANLIB
292 17:49:31 <stevenknight1> i don't think it's really just RANLIB
293 17:49:39 <GregNoel> Question: does SCons automatically apply RANLIB for those platforms that need it? Or does the user have to code something?
294 17:50:44 <stevenknight1> hang on, let me check
295 17:51:14 <stevenknight1> we just set it up in the Tool/ar.py module
296 17:51:38 <GregNoel> It needs to be applied; that's 1.x
297 17:51:42 <stevenknight1> and only if we detect 'ranlib' installed independent from 'ar'
298 17:51:57 <stevenknight1> okay, so there are two parts to the issue here
299 17:52:13 <stevenknight1> make RANLIB independent from ar: 1.x
300 17:52:21 <stevenknight1> GCCTOOLCHAIN stuff: future
301 17:52:23 <stevenknight1> ???
302 17:52:26 <GregNoel> +1
303 17:53:04 <GregNoel> Or just drop the GCC alternate toolchain stuff; no user need
304 17:53:24 <stevenknight1> okay, i can live with that
305 17:53:46 <stevenknight1> i can take RANLIB, I guess
306 17:53:54 <GregNoel> I'll mark it up.
307 17:54:01 <GregNoel> next?
308 17:54:26 <stevenknight1> 344: 1.x, mine
309 17:54:33 <GregNoel> What priority?
310 17:54:55 <stevenknight1> p2, i think
311 17:54:59 <GregNoel> done
312 17:55:23 <stevenknight1> 347: wontfix
313 17:55:24 <GregNoel> 347, 349, close
314 17:55:30 <stevenknight1> yes, yes
315 17:55:45 <stevenknight1> 353 close
316 17:56:18 <GregNoel> yes, no ego permitted {;-}
317 17:56:26 <stevenknight1> :-)
318 17:56:31 <stevenknight1> 356: wontfix
319 17:56:40 <GregNoel> yes
320 17:56:44 <stevenknight1> 374: wontfix
321 17:56:58 <GregNoel> yes
322 17:57:10 <stevenknight1> and that's all for 2002...
323 17:57:23 <GregNoel> next 2003
324 17:57:29 <GregNoel> 397?
325 17:57:37 <garyo-home> wow, i step out of the room and you're on to 2003 already!
326 17:57:47 <GregNoel> got to be quick
327 17:58:08 <stevenknight1> i didn't pre-scan these...
328 17:58:13 <garyo-home> nor me, sorry
329 17:58:24 <GregNoel> homework...
330 17:58:30 <stevenknight1> greg, is the issue link you sent sorted in this order?
331 17:58:47 <GregNoel> uh, not quite, but close enough
332 17:58:52 <GregNoel> two issues are out of order
333 17:58:58 <garyo-home> 397 looks like future to me
334 17:59:08 <garyo-home> or wontfix
335 17:59:10 <GregNoel> I accidently sorted them by issue id
336 17:59:22 <Pankrat> 397 wontfix: I prefer repos as they are
337 17:59:31 <Pankrat> justme
338 17:59:56 <garyo-home> 402 then?
339 18:00:12 <garyo-home> we should do something about this one, it's bit me.
340 18:00:15 <garyo-home> :-)
341 18:00:16 <stevenknight1> 397: wontfix
342 18:00:42 <stevenknight1> 402: give it to me, I'm revamping the Windows toolchain support
343 18:00:49 <stevenknight1> 2.x
344 18:00:54 <stevenknight1> p2
345 18:00:55 <garyo-home> agree
346 18:00:55 <GregNoel> done
347 18:01:19 <garyo-home> 409: irix is dead, i say wontfix.
348 18:01:26 <stevenknight1> 409: wontfix
349 18:01:29 <GregNoel> yes
350 18:01:31 <garyo-home> Besides, parallel builds on IRIX have never really worked right.
351 18:02:16 <stevenknight1> 416: i say wontfix
352 18:02:31 <garyo-home> it's interesting though
353 18:02:38 <garyo-home> future?
354 18:02:38 <GregNoel> Interesting, yes
355 18:02:44 <stevenknight1> strikes me as the sort of nice-sounding idea that probably has lots of unintended side effects due to statefulness
356 18:03:02 <stevenknight1> i can live with future
357 18:03:15 <GregNoel> There's an associated bug report with a model for doing it
358 18:03:28 <GregNoel> but it is intended for advanced users
359 18:03:39 <GregNoel> future is fine
360 18:03:40 <garyo-home> greg: where?
361 18:03:44 <garyo-home> ok, future
362 18:03:46 <stevenknight1> which bug report? am i missing a link?
363 18:04:07 <GregNoel> Isn't there one at the bottom of the bug?
364 18:04:31 <garyo-home> sorry, that. Yes, that's what's interesting.
365 18:05:12 <stevenknight1> bottom of 416?
366 18:05:16 <GregNoel> Oops, no link. wait.
367 18:06:45 <garyo-home> anyway, it's going to end up future. How about 433?
368 18:06:50 <GregNoel> 1933
369 18:07:09 <garyo-home> huh?
370 18:07:20 <stevenknight1> 1933 is the associated bug report to 416
371 18:07:24 <GregNoel> oops 1939
372 18:07:30 <GregNoel> yes
373 18:07:42 <GregNoel> "fast unsafe"
374 18:08:24 <stevenknight1> wow, hadn't really looked at that one
375 18:08:43 <stevenknight1> lots of evil statefulness...
376 18:09:00 <garyo-home> I really don't like that one (not that I understand it fully)
377 18:09:06 <stevenknight1> wait, not really, i misunderstood
378 18:09:13 <garyo-home> but it looks dangerous at best
379 18:09:26 <stevenknight1> doesn't strike me as related to 416, though
380 18:09:31 <GregNoel> advanced users, for sure, lots of warnings, but it would be fast.
381 18:09:41 <stevenknight1> the way i read it, 416 is "remember where I died, start there nxt time"
382 18:10:15 <GregNoel> But what they really all ask for is quick reaction to local SConscript.
383 18:10:31 <stevenknight1> but 416 is transparent to the user, 1939 requires SConscript changes
384 18:10:42 <GregNoel> or a command-line option.
385 18:10:46 <garyo-home> 1939 to me: future unless someone shows us some code
386 18:10:52 <Pankrat> well interactive solves this too
387 18:10:53 <stevenknight1> agree w/gary
388 18:11:06 <garyo-home> yes Pankrat
389 18:11:17 <GregNoel> somebody twisted my arm to put it in GSoC, so I did
390 18:11:25 <stevenknight1> i also think we can do what 1939 is asking now that the Big Signature Refactoring has changed the .sconsign format
391 18:11:30 <stevenknight1> that's one of its intended goals
392 18:11:39 <stevenknight1> ...and I guess that means I just signed up for 1939... :-)
393 18:11:54 <garyo-home> ok, but still future?
394 18:11:59 <stevenknight1> yeah, future
395 18:12:03 <GregNoel> p2?
396 18:12:06 <garyo-home> ok
397 18:12:09 <GregNoel> done
398 18:12:12 <stevenknight1> sure, p2
399 18:12:18 <GregNoel> same for 433?
400 18:12:20 <garyo-home> so how bout 433 I think is next
401 18:12:39 <stevenknight1> did we finish 416 before that digression? future?
402 18:12:52 <garyo-home> 433: I'm not an automake guy so those things look really specialized to me, I'd never use them.
403 18:12:56 <GregNoel> oops, same for 416 then?
404 18:13:10 <stevenknight1> 416: future
405 18:13:12 <garyo-home> I'm ok w/ 416 -> future
406 18:13:16 <GregNoel> p2?
407 18:13:18 <stevenknight1> 433: 2.x, me
408 18:13:24 <stevenknight1> ?
409 18:13:38 <garyo-home> do people really want 433?
410 18:13:39 <GregNoel> 433 p2?
411 18:13:49 <stevenknight1> not sure
412 18:13:53 <garyo-home> Can't it just be aliases etc.?
413 18:14:06 <GregNoel> no, it's more complex.
414 18:14:07 <stevenknight1> but i think i'll need to take a look at that as part of integrating Maciej's automake stuff
415 18:14:26 <garyo-home> ok, i see
416 18:14:29 <stevenknight1> it should all be part of finishing and documenting that so it works "naturally" for people migrating from autotools
417 18:14:38 <GregNoel> exactly
418 18:14:38 <stevenknight1> yes?
419 18:14:51 <stevenknight1> 433: 2.x, me, p2
420 18:14:54 <GregNoel> dpme
421 18:14:56 <garyo-home> ok
422 18:14:59 <GregNoel> oops, done
423 18:15:22 <garyo-home> 438: i like that one, just ignore the .sconsign.
424 18:15:41 <stevenknight1> yeah, that would be handy
425 18:15:43 <garyo-home> i say 2.x, p2
426 18:15:55 <stevenknight1> i think there's a make option that does something similar...?
427 18:15:55 <garyo-home> or maybe even 1.x
428 18:16:04 <GregNoel> Ah, it's a dup with 331
429 18:16:34 <stevenknight1> okay
430 18:17:03 <garyo-home> not exactly a dup though.
431 18:17:19 <garyo-home> 331 is "what if", 438 says actually redo everything.
432 18:17:22 <stevenknight1> oh, right: 331 is like -n, 438 really wants the build to happen
433 18:17:24 <stevenknight1> right
434 18:17:42 <garyo-home> 331 is harder due to signatures and generated code.
435 18:17:50 <GregNoel> No, -W does not add -n
436 18:18:14 <stevenknight1> no, but it doesn't actually do the build, does it?
437 18:18:19 <GregNoel> If you say -W, the file is rebuilt; if you add -n it will tell you what else is rebuilt
438 18:18:29 * ita has quit (Remote closed the connection)
439 18:18:33 <stevenknight1> oh, wow, I didn't know that
440 18:18:49 <stevenknight1> hey, i didn't notice that ita was here...!
441 18:18:56 <stevenknight1> you guys know who that was IRL?
442 18:18:58 <stevenknight1> is?
443 18:19:04 <garyo-home> no, who?
444 18:19:10 <stevenknight1> our good friend Thomas Nagy
445 18:19:14 <garyo-home> ah.
446 18:19:19 <stevenknight1> cool
447 18:19:40 <garyo-home> ... so 331 should get a note explaining what Greg said
448 18:19:47 <stevenknight1> agreed
449 18:20:26 <GregNoel> So close this as a dup?
450 18:20:51 <garyo-home> i just put the note in 331 but I say link them, don't close either as dup
451 18:21:09 <stevenknight1> guess so, if it really does behave like make -W
452 18:21:46 <GregNoel> I'll dig out the exact man page section from make and add it
453 18:21:46 <garyo-home> ok, if they're the same then fine
454 18:21:51 <garyo-home> good.
455 18:22:04 <GregNoel> 447?
456 18:22:08 <stevenknight1> 447: i say wontfix
457 18:22:13 <garyo-home> wontfix
458 18:22:15 <stevenknight1> way too complicated and specialized
459 18:22:24 <GregNoel> wontfix
460 18:22:35 <GregNoel> and Bill says wontfix
461 18:22:43 <stevenknight1> 448: wontfix
462 18:22:44 <Pankrat> if you ignore the text and only read the summary than it makes a little sense
463 18:22:48 <Pankrat> (447)
464 18:23:05 <Pankrat> but I have no good idea to implement it :(
465 18:23:38 <stevenknight1> agreed, it's not obvious how to do it
466 18:23:50 <GregNoel> Bill and I say wontfix, 448
467 18:23:55 <stevenknight1> 448: wontfix
468 18:23:58 <garyo-home> 448: wontfix
469 18:23:59 <GregNoel> done
470 18:24:26 <garyo-home> 449 can usually be done by massaging the action list.
471 18:24:36 <stevenknight1> of the Builder?
472 18:24:44 <garyo-home> yes
473 18:24:50 <GregNoel> API?
474 18:24:53 <garyo-home> That's how I do 'mt' on Windows now
475 18:25:12 <stevenknight1> i see
476 18:25:16 <garyo-home> I wouldn't mind AppendAction/PrependAction though
477 18:25:28 <garyo-home> (just thinking out loud)
478 18:25:39 <stevenknight1> actually, related but OT: how about adding pre_action= and post_action= keyword arguments to Builder calls, too
479 18:25:59 <GregNoel> Overkill?
480 18:26:04 <garyo-home> how's that better than a separate call?
481 18:26:14 <GregNoel> This isn't Perl
482 18:26:17 <stevenknight1> you may not want to modify the actual Builder itself
483 18:26:37 <garyo-home> If you're not modifying the builder, then pre_action === AddPreAction, right?
484 18:26:41 <stevenknight1> or the builder's action list
485 18:26:51 <stevenknight1> yes
486 18:27:10 <stevenknight1> but you wouldn't have to capture the return and call it separately
487 18:27:21 <stevenknight1> maybe that's just syntactic sugar and we don't need the extra complexity
488 18:27:39 <garyo-home> I think that's right
489 18:27:49 <stevenknight1> okay, move on
490 18:28:20 <GregNoel> 460, src_dir
491 18:28:20 <garyo-home> so 449 is wontfix then?
492 18:28:38 <stevenknight1> whoops, we're coming to my stop in a minute or two
493 18:29:07 <stevenknight1> i'm going to send something to the mailing list about branching
494 18:29:32 <GregNoel> run for home; will you be back?
495 18:29:36 <stevenknight1> i need a place for some stuff I have to work on for 2.x
496 18:29:42 <stevenknight1> it's about a 15 min. walk
497 18:30:06 <GregNoel> Without Bill and you, we should probably break here, then
498 18:30:14 <stevenknight1> okay, gotta go
499 18:30:20 <stevenknight1> catch you on the mailing list
500 18:30:22 * stevenknight1 has quit ("Leaving")
501 18:30:31 <garyo-home> so who'
502 18:30:34 <garyo-home> s left?
503 18:30:49 <Pankrat> I am. But I go to sleep now ...
504 18:30:56 <GregNoel> you and me, Ken never showed
505 18:31:00 <garyo-home> ok, let's just do 460 and break then.
506 18:31:05 <GregNoel> ok
507 18:31:15 <garyo-home> I think 460 just wants a better error message really.
508 18:31:16 <GregNoel> I'm of the opinion that src_dir should be removed until we know what it's supposed to do.
509 18:31:31 <garyo-home> :-/
510 18:32:03 <GregNoel> Every time I've tried it, it hasn't worked, or it's done something I didn't expect.
511 18:32:21 <GregNoel> I don't think even a better error message can save it
512 18:32:25 <garyo-home> how about we make it 1.x but only add the error message to detect this case, then file a new bug for "remove src_dir unless someone can explain it"
513 18:32:40 <GregNoel> I'll buy that
514 18:32:41 <garyo-home> (this case being: src_dir without build_dir)
515 18:32:52 <GregNoel> yes.
516 18:33:07 <GregNoel> OK, I'll put that in the bug
517 18:33:31 <garyo-home> ok then, we'll pick up where we left off next time. Thanks! Greg, are you going to do all the data entry?
518 18:33:32 <GregNoel> Since you were host, you're done; I'll take care of fixing all the bugs.
519 18:33:54 <garyo-home> sorry I didn't really host much. I'm only about 50% present right now.
520 18:34:00 <garyo-home> exhausted.
521 18:34:07 <GregNoel> And I've got the IRC log; I can post that, too.
522 18:34:13 <garyo-home> ok, thx!
523 18:34:19 <garyo-home> bye then
524 18:34:24 <GregNoel> cul
525 18:34:36 * You have been marked as being away
526 18:34:43 * jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1167886910.dsl.bell.ca) has left #scons
527 18:35:37 * Pankrat (n=ludwig@dslb-088-073-195-149.pools.arcor-ip.net) has left #scons
528 18:35:40 * garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has left #scons
529
BugParty/IrcLog2008-04-01
No older revisions available!
Clear message