| 16:42:23 | * | bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons |
| 17:25:45 | * | stevenknight (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.130) has joined #scons |
| 17:26:25 | GregoryNoel | That's three; where's Gary? |
| 17:26:39 | stevenknight | i think he said he might be late |
| 17:26:42 | stevenknight | putting the kids to bed |
| 17:26:56 | stevenknight | bill, you're not spinning tonight? |
| 17:27:22 | stevenknight | oh, wait, he's greyed out |
| 17:27:30 | stevenknight | who's the third? |
| 17:28:17 | * | garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons |
| 17:28:25 | GregoryNoel | You, me, Bill, and there's Gary. |
| 17:28:34 | stevenknight | hi Gary |
| 17:28:50 | garyo-home | hi guys, I'm here for a little, then I'll have to put the kids to bed, then I'll be back. |
| 17:28:57 | GregoryNoel | Anybody else here for the bug party? |
| 17:30:09 | GregoryNoel | OK, the official start is here; shall we proceed? |
| 17:30:16 | stevenknight | let's go |
| 17:30:24 | stevenknight | starting with current... |
| 17:30:25 | stevenknight | 2048 |
| 17:30:36 | GregoryNoel | In the overlaps? |
| 17:31:00 | stevenknight | the "Current issues" spreadsheet? |
| 17:31:33 | GregoryNoel | We should do the ones left over from last time first; it overlaps with the current issues |
| 17:31:49 | stevenknight | okay, point me to the list/spreadsheet you want to work from |
| 17:32:06 | garyo-home | I guess that would be editlist2008, w/ 1874 first |
| 17:32:14 | GregoryNoel | yep |
| 17:32:35 | stevenknight | go ahead, i've scrolled down |
| 17:32:45 | garyo-home | ok, 1874: hasn't this been fixed multiple times before? |
| 17:33:10 | * | bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.") |
| 17:33:12 | GregoryNoel | Yes |
| 17:33:14 | garyo-home | I think I fixed it myself a long time ago. |
| 17:33:27 | garyo-home | Should've made a better test case I guess. |
| 17:33:46 | GregoryNoel | Bill just left, but he was going to bring it up for discussion on the mailing list |
| 17:34:03 | GregoryNoel | did it ever happen? I don't remember it. |
| 17:34:13 | garyo-home | Don't think so. |
| 17:34:33 | GregoryNoel | And Steven is right that one size does not fit all. |
| 17:34:59 | garyo-home | I seem to remember that I fixed it by ignoring "suffixes" that were all numeric, that's probably why ".4g" fails that test. |
| 17:35:21 | garyo-home | Does this just have to be configurable? |
| 17:35:31 | GregoryNoel | I don't see how |
| 17:35:30 | stevenknight | I think give it back to Bill and/or recategorize it as a doc issue |
| 17:35:43 | GregoryNoel | I like doc issue |
| 17:35:52 | garyo-home | there could be a "force suffix" option or something? |
| 17:36:06 | GregoryNoel | Hmmm |
| 17:36:09 | stevenknight | that's File("name-with.odd-suffix") |
| 17:36:31 | GregoryNoel | good point |
| 17:36:32 | stevenknight | oh, you mean on the Builder |
| 17:36:46 | garyo-home | yeah I guess |
| 17:37:00 | GregoryNoel | OK, a doc issue assigned to?? |
| 17:37:14 | garyo-home | I don't think it's just doc, is it? |
| 17:37:35 | GregoryNoel | "If you don't like the suffix, use File()" |
| 17:37:56 | garyo-home | OK, I could live with that for now, but I'd like a better solution for 2.x |
| 17:38:15 | GregoryNoel | I would, too |
| 17:38:10 | stevenknight | back to Bill to really discuss on the mailing list |
| 17:38:34 | stevenknight | and/or doc the File() workaround |
| 17:38:30 | GregoryNoel | OK, I'll make it, what, research? |
| 17:38:37 | stevenknight | yeah, research |
| 17:38:40 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 17:38:45 | GregoryNoel | next? |
| 17:38:54 | stevenknight | 1883 |
| 17:39:09 | stevenknight | damn, i answered this in the other spreadsheet as well |
| 17:39:14 | stevenknight | my comment in editlist2008 is off |
| 17:39:22 | stevenknight | the last time we put it in we did have instaler issues |
| 17:39:34 | GregoryNoel | What's up with Nathan? |
| 17:39:37 | stevenknight | but it was because distutils changed the location to the script/ subdirectory at the same time |
| 17:39:45 | stevenknight | I don't think it had anything to do with this App Paths thing |
| 17:39:58 | stevenknight | ??? |
| 17:40:01 | stevenknight | oh, GSoC? |
| 17:40:13 | GregoryNoel | Yes, we talked about assigning it to him |
| 17:40:39 | stevenknight | ah, right |
| 17:40:42 | garyo-home | 1883: what does the patch really do? I can't see it. |
| 17:41:20 | stevenknight | it adds an entry to the Windows registry |
| 17:41:48 | stevenknight | IIRC it ends up making it so you can execute scons.bat w/out having to have the directory in %PATH% |
| 17:42:17 | stevenknight | Nathan has been sending me status reports, but I've not been giving him adequate attention yet |
| 17:42:20 | garyo-home | That would be good; maybe it sets cmd.exe's AppPath or something I guess |
| 17:42:22 | stevenknight | so we could definitely assign it to him |
| 17:42:45 | garyo-home | I never use scons.bat, but I could do so for testing this. |
| 17:42:47 | GregoryNoel | OK, what's his account? |
| 17:43:15 | stevenknight | i'll look it up |
| 17:43:20 | stevenknight | let's move on while i search |
| 17:43:32 | garyo-home | 1925, then? |
| 17:43:46 | GregoryNoel | Add it to the spreadsheet when you find it; I'll take care of it later |
| 17:44:01 | stevenknight | okay |
| 17:44:07 | stevenknight | 1925: research, me |
| 17:44:24 | GregoryNoel | done; next? |
| 17:44:32 | garyo-home | OK, but not for 1.0 though |
| 17:44:53 | stevenknight | definitely not 1.0 |
| 17:45:01 | GregoryNoel | probably 2.x |
| 17:45:07 | stevenknight | 1958: Bill's volunteering, consensus research |
| 17:45:29 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 17:46:11 | garyo-home | 2000: I say 1.x but not the approach in the patch; should really figure it out. |
| 17:46:28 | GregoryNoel | when? |
| 17:46:56 | garyo-home | Low priority, so could be 2.x as far as I care |
| 17:47:02 | GregoryNoel | 1.x? or move to 2.x? |
| 17:47:35 | garyo-home | I say 2.x because it'll just slow down real work |
| 17:47:37 | stevenknight | agree w/Gary, 1.x, low priority... P4? |
| 17:47:46 | GregoryNoel | p5 |
| 17:47:50 | stevenknight | fair enough |
| 17:47:57 | GregoryNoel | done; next? |
| 17:47:59 | stevenknight | do i hear p6? |
| 17:48:08 | GregoryNoel | (no such!) |
| 17:48:10 | garyo-home | :-) |
| 17:48:19 | stevenknight | going once, twice.... sold! |
| 17:48:43 | garyo-home | ok, 2001? (remove max_drift) |
| 17:48:58 | stevenknight | 2001: research |
| 17:49:00 | GregoryNoel | Narrow use; 2.x |
| 17:49:08 | garyo-home | I don't use it, but it was meant to support NFS. |
| 17:49:26 | stevenknight | i'm inclined to give it back to Ken and let him lead a ML discussion to find out who's actually using it |
| 17:49:29 | stevenknight | if anyone |
| 17:49:35 | GregoryNoel | And NFS now uses deltas, so it doesn't happen any more. |
| 17:49:38 | garyo-home | Actually Greg if it can give a 25% speedup, I say get rid of it sooner |
| 17:49:50 | stevenknight | speedup++ |
| 17:50:01 | garyo-home | 1.x, p2? |
| 17:50:12 | * | stevenknight agrees |
| 17:50:22 | GregoryNoel | ok |
| 17:50:44 | garyo-home | 2003 is weird |
| 17:50:46 | stevenknight | 2003: agree w/Greg, wontfix |
| 17:50:52 | stevenknight | agree w/Gary, weird |
| 17:51:07 | garyo-home | wontfix |
| 17:51:11 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 17:51:37 | GregoryNoel | last one? |
| 17:51:59 | garyo-home | This will get fixed someday by Greg+Gary tool rewrite, but what about the near term? |
| 17:52:39 | garyo-home | We can't use his patch as is, people don't expect CCFLAGS to get clobbered. |
| 17:53:06 | GregoryNoel | Maybe it should be set by c-common setup, whatever it's called. |
| 17:53:34 | GregoryNoel | er, no, bad idea |
| 17:53:53 | stevenknight | hmm, i took a quick look last night and i think his narrow fix of having mingw reset $CCFLAGS solves his specific symptom nicely with little impact |
| 17:54:02 | GregoryNoel | This happens because one compiler is configured and then another configured on top of it |
| 17:54:15 | stevenknight | agreed that's the larger issue |
| 17:54:20 | garyo-home | Right, but what if user sets CCFLAGS and then applies Tool('mingw')? |
| 17:54:35 | GregoryNoel | He gets what he pays for. |
| 17:54:44 | stevenknight | they're no worse off than lots of other things that get set |
| 17:54:52 | stevenknight | $CCCOM, $CFLAGS, etc. |
| 17:54:56 | garyo-home | Hmm, OK I see your point. |
| 17:55:10 | stevenknight | all that has to wait until your tool rewrite |
| 17:55:17 | garyo-home | OK, 1.x then. |
| 17:55:21 | stevenknight | but we can make this one situation better in the meantime |
| 17:55:26 | GregoryNoel | OK, what priority? |
| 17:55:36 | stevenknight | p2 or p3 |
| 17:55:58 | garyo-home | p3, it's only that one tool in that one case |
| 17:56:02 | GregoryNoel | done; on to the next spreadsheet |
| 17:56:02 | stevenknight | okay |
| 17:56:24 | stevenknight | Current Issues, right? |
| 17:56:26 | garyo-home | I like Ken's patch in 2048 |
| 17:56:44 | stevenknight | gary, you think 1.0? |
| 17:56:51 | GregoryNoel | destab |
| 17:57:00 | stevenknight | as in 0.98.5? |
| 17:57:01 | GregoryNoel | destableizing |
| 17:57:06 | stevenknight | right, i'm worried abou stability on it |
| 17:57:12 | garyo-home | Look at the code; it only does changes that one case. But 1.x is fine w/ me. |
| 17:57:16 | GregoryNoel | (ok, I still can't spell) |
| 17:58:02 | garyo-home | 1953, my current bete noire... |
| 17:58:03 | GregoryNoel | 1.x, what priority? |
| 17:58:05 | stevenknight | 1.x, give it to me for integration |
| 17:58:20 | garyo-home | 2048: p3? |
| 17:58:24 | stevenknight | p2, i agree that the patch is nice (modulo stability) |
| 17:58:32 | garyo-home | ok, p2 |
| 17:58:36 | GregoryNoel | 2048, ok |
| 17:59:13 | garyo-home | Can we put 1953 in 1.0? |
| 17:59:35 | garyo-home | At least to see if that fixes the problem? |
| 17:59:37 | stevenknight | that code looks safe enough to me |
| 17:59:52 | stevenknight | and there needs to be a 0.98.5 for other reasons anyway |
| 17:59:55 | stevenknight | 1.0, p2 |
| 17:59:55 | GregoryNoel | it was off the top of my head; don't take it literally |
| 18:00:07 | stevenknight | right, but it's clear a problem |
| 18:00:24 | stevenknight | and you point to the right sort of solution, even if the code ends up a little different |
| 18:00:26 | garyo-home | and it *has* to be a threading thing because otherwise that error could not occur |
| 18:00:28 | GregoryNoel | it still leaves the race, it just covers up the symptoms |
| 18:00:36 | garyo-home | Greg: that is true. |
| 18:01:05 | stevenknight | an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance... ;-) |
| 18:01:33 | garyo-home | I'll be back in a bit -- at least you're at the part of the spreadsheet where I did my homework now :-) |
| 18:01:34 | GregoryNoel | Gary, have you tried it? |
| 18:02:21 | GregoryNoel | Why don't we assign it to you for research; if it seems to kill the problem, we'll try it for 1.0 |
| 18:02:30 | GregoryNoel | And he's gone.... |
| 18:02:37 | stevenknight | yeah |
| 18:02:40 | stevenknight | research, me |
| 18:03:00 | GregoryNoel | OK, I'm sure Gary will be willing to test it |
| 18:03:11 | stevenknight | agree about the underlying race for NodeInfo still being there; I'll add comments to that effect |
| 18:03:24 | stevenknight | in get_ninfo(), not just here |
| 18:03:39 | stevenknight | and/or in NodeInfo.__init__() or some such |
| 18:03:48 | GregoryNoel | works for me |
| 18:03:59 | stevenknight | okay, looks like we covered the next set of overlaps |
| 18:04:03 | stevenknight | 1874, 1883 |
| 18:04:05 | GregoryNoel | skipping the overlaps to 1967? |
| 18:04:27 | stevenknight | right 1967 |
| 18:04:30 | stevenknight | consensus future |
| 18:04:37 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 18:04:40 | stevenknight | do we need an assigee? |
| 18:05:03 | GregoryNoel | for that far in the future? no, I don't think so. what priority? |
| 18:05:18 | stevenknight | leave it p3 |
| 18:05:24 | GregoryNoel | done;next? |
| 18:05:41 | stevenknight | skip 2000, 2001 |
| 18:05:49 | GregoryNoel | I'll take 2007 |
| 18:05:50 | stevenknight | 2007: 1.x, you |
| 18:05:53 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 18:06:19 | stevenknight | 2010: 2.x consensus |
| 18:06:21 | stevenknight | leave unassigned? |
| 18:06:28 | GregoryNoel | yes to both |
| 18:06:57 | GregoryNoel | I want to get a keyword for all of these so we can triage them further as a group. |
| 18:07:06 | GregoryNoel | and assign them then |
| 18:07:05 | stevenknight | good idea |
| 18:07:18 | stevenknight | 2014: i'm torn |
| 18:07:39 | GregoryNoel | I don't understand why it's needed |
| 18:08:04 | stevenknight | right now we assume that no one else has corrupted the tree in between runs |
| 18:08:08 | stevenknight | not unreasonably |
| 18:08:10 | GregoryNoel | either you trust the sig or you don't. |
| 18:08:51 | GregoryNoel | if you don't trust it, always recalc, fine. |
| 18:09:05 | GregoryNoel | but if you're going to try for optimizations, you have to trust it |
| 18:09:21 | stevenknight | hmm, i do see your point |
| 18:09:26 | GregoryNoel | that's why Decider() has such a range of options |
| 18:09:31 | stevenknight | this was a bigger problem back when we were using build signatures |
| 18:09:51 | GregoryNoel | but they're going away |
| 18:10:00 | stevenknight | and we could use signatures from the .sconsign file assuming no file corruption |
| 18:10:01 | GregoryNoel | don't throw good effort after bad |
| 18:10:40 | GregoryNoel | Uh, which file corrupted? .sconign? |
| 18:11:06 | stevenknight | no, you build |
| 18:11:28 | stevenknight | then someone corrupts your .obj file (or copies a trojan into it) |
| 18:11:48 | stevenknight | and we could see the .c file hasn't change, so we don't rebuild the .obj |
| 18:12:06 | stevenknight | but then *use* that corrupt .obj to link a .exe |
| 18:12:13 | stevenknight | so this verification would be |
| 18:12:15 | GregoryNoel | The sig wouldn't match, oh, I see, |
| 18:12:29 | stevenknight | right |
| 18:12:38 | GregoryNoel | The new sig wouldn't match, but the old one could. |
| 18:12:40 | GregoryNoel | hmmm |
| 18:13:22 | stevenknight | right, it starts to use the .sconsign signatures as a weak bill-of-materials of sorts |
| 18:14:01 | stevenknight | before you use the built targets from last time, please make sure that you think they really do match what you thought you built |
| 18:13:49 | GregoryNoel | How about a Decider(always-recalc)? |
| 18:14:17 | stevenknight | something like that |
| 18:14:34 | GregoryNoel | I could understand that but I'd do it as a Decider() |
| 18:14:42 | stevenknight | give it to me, 1.x, p3 |
| 18:14:49 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 18:15:13 | stevenknight | if it fits in Decider I'll do it that way |
| 18:15:58 | stevenknight | hmm, looks like i'll be able to go beyond 6:30 tonight |
| 18:16:12 | GregoryNoel | Keep pushing... |
| 18:16:16 | stevenknight | we're stuck in traffic |
| 18:16:32 | stevenknight | likely because of an accident... :-( |
| 18:17:05 | GregoryNoel | (I'll tell you my stuck-in-traffic story some day) |
| 18:16:36 | GregoryNoel | 2015 |
| 18:17:06 | stevenknight | 1.x, me, p3 |
| 18:17:47 | GregoryNoel | ok, getting that scan for the dir source really needs to be fixed |
| 18:18:46 | GregoryNoel | 2016, consensus |
| 18:19:22 | stevenknight | yeah, 2.x |
| 18:19:50 | GregoryNoel | 2020: this isn't tool config, why our plan? |
| 18:20:31 | GregoryNoel | oops, screen update, nevermind |
| 18:21:03 | stevenknight | sorry, what are we on? |
| 18:21:08 | stevenknight | 2016 is consensus 2.x, yes? |
| 18:21:12 | stevenknight | and I have 2018 next |
| 18:21:52 | GregoryNoel | Yeah, the spreadsheet is giving me partial screen updates |
| 18:22:06 | stevenknight | okay |
| 18:22:33 | stevenknight | i think 2018 is pretty straightforward |
| 18:22:43 | stevenknight | 1.x seems reasonable |
| 18:22:45 | GregoryNoel | I'm pretty sure that blanks are compressed out of all cmd-STR variables |
| 18:23:12 | GregoryNoel | But I've broken the case where I was doing it, so I'm not positive. |
| 18:23:10 | stevenknight | if you want to confirm that I'll support INVALID |
| 18:23:24 | GregoryNoel | me, research? |
| 18:23:45 | stevenknight | done |
| 18:24:15 | GregoryNoel | 2020, you, as specified, done |
| 18:24:15 | stevenknight | 2020: me, 1.x, p...2? |
| 18:24:49 | stevenknight | 2021: 1.x, anyone else's choice of priority |
| 18:25:07 | GregoryNoel | These File/Dir conflicts are new; something started them. p2 is probbly OK |
| 18:25:40 | stevenknight | 2021 is actually the --debug=time + --interactive bug, not File/Dir |
| 18:26:18 | GregoryNoel | Yeah, I don't type fast enough |
| 18:26:49 | stevenknight | no problem, just want to make sure we're getting right info on the right bug |
| 18:27:01 | GregoryNoel | 2021 p2 unless it's not simple, then p3 or p4 |
| 18:27:20 | stevenknight | agreed |
| 18:27:23 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 18:27:55 | stevenknight | 2022: agree w/your plan, let David prioritize it relative to his time and other Fortran work |
| 18:28:04 | GregoryNoel | 2023, you research for dup? |
| 18:28:37 | stevenknight | yes |
| 18:28:49 | GregoryNoel | 2022, funny screen updates again, done |
| 18:29:30 | stevenknight | no problem |
| 18:29:33 | stevenknight | 2029: |
| 18:29:46 | GregoryNoel | not a lot of yacc users, 2.x? |
| 18:29:59 | stevenknight | i could go for that |
| 18:30:13 | GregoryNoel | assign to Gary? |
| 18:30:14 | stevenknight | we can always move it up if there's a groundswell |
| 18:30:20 | GregoryNoel | agreed |
| 18:30:21 | stevenknight | yes |
| 18:30:24 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 18:31:00 | * | GregoryNoel stays silent for 2036 |
| 18:31:05 | stevenknight | 2036: consensus 2.x p2 |
| 18:31:19 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 18:31:23 | stevenknight | i completely agree we're way overdue for a better way to do this |
| 18:31:37 | stevenknight | assign it to either me or you and we can work out a reasonable interface between us |
| 18:31:45 | stevenknight | i'd be happy to implement, though |
| 18:32:08 | GregoryNoel | I don't like DESTDIR; too inflexible, but we can discuss that elsewhere |
| 18:32:21 | stevenknight | i think you're right |
| 18:32:29 | stevenknight | 2037: TASK |
| 18:32:36 | stevenknight | it's not product code at all |
| 18:33:03 | stevenknight | let Sohail check it in himself and you (or anyone else) can hack on it as necessary |
| 18:33:12 | GregoryNoel | done; I fiddled with it today |
| 18:33:14 | garyo-home | hi guys I'm back |
| 18:33:24 | stevenknight | hey there |
| 18:33:33 | stevenknight | we're up to 2041 on the "Current issues" spreadsheet |
| 18:33:38 | GregoryNoel | and there's some nice test code in the attachment; Hi, Gary... |
| 18:33:53 | stevenknight | just in time for you to weigh in on it, it's an intelc.py thing |
| 18:34:03 | garyo-home | OK. yep, that sounds like mine. |
| 18:34:32 | stevenknight | okay, we got past the traffic slowdown, i think i've got another 5-10 minutes |
| 18:34:52 | garyo-home | Don't know if it has to be as complicated as that patch though; I might just add an option so user could specify if needed. |
| 18:35:03 | stevenknight | 2041: assign to gary, 1.x, p...3? |
| 18:35:05 | garyo-home | Anyway assign it to me, 1.x, p2 or p3 |
| 18:35:11 | GregoryNoel | p3 |
| 18:35:24 | GregoryNoel | done |
| 18:35:46 | stevenknight | skip next (OVERLAP) |
| 18:35:47 | stevenknight | 2043 |
| 18:35:50 | garyo-home | 2043 seems like a side project to me |
| 18:35:56 | stevenknight | 2.x, p4 |
| 18:36:01 | stevenknight | we have plenty of real work to do |
| 18:36:05 | garyo-home | OK, 2.x p4 |
| 18:36:21 | GregoryNoel | done; when shall we three meet again? |
| 18:36:25 | stevenknight | if they want to actually do the work i'd be okay with it going in earlier, too |
| 18:36:36 | GregoryNoel | in lightning, thunder, or in rain? |
| 18:36:38 | stevenknight | 2044: |
| 18:36:45 | stevenknight | 1.x, p2 (if not p1)? |
| 18:36:48 | garyo-home | Yes, 2044 should be 1.x or earlier |
| 18:36:54 | stevenknight | i'd say 1.0 but it's potentially destabilizing |
| 18:36:54 | GregoryNoel | uh, that was a left parenthesis... |
| 18:36:57 | garyo-home | UNC paths are important |
| 18:37:20 | stevenknight | if you want we could make it 1.0 and i could take a look at how bad it would be |
| 18:37:36 | stevenknight | i can always decide to push it back |
| 18:37:42 | GregoryNoel | research? I don't want to commit to 1.0 |
| 18:37:58 | garyo-home | I can run it here too. Let's just look at the code carefully before putting it in 1.0. |
| 18:38:06 | stevenknight | i'd prefere 1.x over research to make sure it stays on more visible lists |
| 18:38:17 | GregoryNoel | 1.x p1? |
| 18:38:19 | stevenknight | research suggests "back burner" to me w.r.t. actually allocating time |
| 18:38:19 | garyo-home | Yes, don't make it research |
| 18:38:24 | stevenknight | yeah, 1.x p1 |
| 18:38:33 | garyo-home | OK w/ that |
| 18:38:39 | GregoryNoel | No, research means "figure this out and assign it to a milestone" |
| 18:39:05 | GregoryNoel | Can we meet again tomorrow briefly if we don't finish today? |
| 18:39:05 | garyo-home | Greg: technically you're right but we're close to 1.0 now so there's not much research time left |
| 18:39:09 | stevenknight | i agree conceptually, but in practice I deal with 1.0 before research |
| 18:39:28 | garyo-home | Yes, I can do tomorrow night for a little while. I'll finish the spreadsheet too. |
| 18:39:48 | GregoryNoel | Just for this spreadsheet |
| 18:40:00 | stevenknight | 2046: consensus 1.x p4 |
| 18:40:03 | stevenknight | i can do tomorrow |
| 18:40:05 | garyo-home | right, that's the last bit: 2046 to the end |
| 18:40:27 | stevenknight | okay, last few minutes for me |
| 18:40:36 | stevenknight | tomorrow night: 17:00 or 17:30? |
| 18:40:52 | garyo-home | 17:00 is better for me I think |
| 18:40:58 | stevenknight | that's fine for me |
| 18:41:00 | GregoryNoel | either is fine by me |
| 18:41:04 | stevenknight | 17:00 |
| 18:41:09 | garyo-home | ok, done, see you then |
| 18:41:13 | stevenknight | sounds good |
| 18:41:15 | stevenknight | many thanks |
| 18:41:24 | GregoryNoel | 17h00 to use the standard, such as it is... |
| 18:41:34 | stevenknight | 17h00... :-) |
| 18:41:38 | garyo-home | right. |
| 18:41:39 | GregoryNoel | 2047? |
| 18:41:57 | garyo-home | That's the one that a user was complaining about, right? |
| 18:42:09 | garyo-home | How about warning instead of erroring? |
| 18:42:11 | stevenknight | yeah |
| 18:42:29 | GregoryNoel | I'll buy a warning |
| 18:42:36 | stevenknight | 1.0? |
| 18:42:42 | GregoryNoel | hmmm |
| 18:43:02 | garyo-home | As long as adding the warning and keeping going is easy, then 1.0, else 1.x. |
| 18:43:05 | stevenknight | i'm more comfortable with 1.x, but this is pretty annoying |
| 18:43:26 | stevenknight | me, 1.0, p2 |
| 18:43:32 | GregoryNoel | 1.x p1; if he finishes early, we can reconsider |
| 18:43:33 | garyo-home | Put it in for 1.0 but if it gets tricky then reschedule for 1.x |
| 18:43:36 | stevenknight | if it looks risky i'll push it out |
| 18:43:44 | stevenknight | agreed |
| 18:43:53 | GregoryNoel | which? |
| 18:43:59 | stevenknight | coming up to the bus stop, catch you guys tomorrow |
| 18:44:01 | stevenknight | 1.0 |
| 18:44:13 | garyo-home | ok, have a good night Steven! |
| 18:44:17 | stevenknight | 2047: 1.0, p2 |
| 18:44:18 | GregoryNoel | Let's pick up here; cul |
| 18:44:18 | stevenknight | l8r |
| 18:44:22 | * | stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") |
| 18:44:24 | garyo-home | (pun not intended) |
| 18:44:47 | garyo-home | ok Greg, I'll see you tomorrow as well. |
| 18:44:54 | GregoryNoel | OK, cul |
| 18:45:02 | garyo-home | bye |
