Please note:The SCons wiki is now restored from the attack in March 2013. All old passwords have been invalidated. Please reset your password if you have an account. If you note missing pages, please report them to webmaster@scons.org. Also, new account creation is currently disabled due to an ongoing spam flood (2013/08/27).
   1 09:43:15 *      bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
   2 16:59:51 *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-20f1d53866f4ad08) has joined #scons
   3 16:59:53 <GregoryNoel>  Who's here for the bug party?
   4 16:59:59 <stevenknight> me me me
   5 17:00:19 <bdbaddog>     I though it was yesterday.
   6 17:00:30 <stevenknight> we had some follow-up to do
   7 17:00:38 <GregoryNoel>  followup with the rest of the current issues tonight
   8 17:01:23 <GregoryNoel>  Gary is marked away; are you really here?
   9 17:01:38 <stevenknight> you == ?
  10 17:01:47 <GregoryNoel>  you == Gary
  11 17:02:14 <GregoryNoel>  he said he'd be here; shall we wait a couple of minutes?
  12 17:02:44 <stevenknight> sure, i can't see waiting as a problem
  13 17:03:00 <stevenknight> we should have plenty of time
  14 17:02:56 <GregoryNoel>  Are you on the bus yet?
  15 17:03:44 <stevenknight> doesn't come until 5:25
  16 17:04:03 <stevenknight> i should only have a slight hiccough when i change from land-based wifi to mobile
  17 17:04:28 <GregoryNoel>  Bill, we'll pick up with 2047 in the current issues, if you can join us
  18 17:04:40 <bdbaddog>     sure. lemme clock out.
  19 17:04:52 <garyo-home>   Hi, I'm here now.
  20 17:05:14 <bdbaddog>     which spreadsheet are we looking at?
  21 17:05:26 <GregoryNoel>  current issues of current issues
  22 17:06:35 <GregoryNoel>  I'm going to grab a Coke while we're getting set up
  23 17:06:38 <garyo-home>   For 2047 we were discussing whether it could just be a warning, iirc
  24 17:06:53 <garyo-home>   at least for 1.0?
  25 17:07:22 <stevenknight> bdbaddog:  "Current issues"
  26 17:07:44 <bdbaddog>     got it, row 339 in the spreadshhet
  27 17:07:49 <garyo-home>   Hey, where did the queries in the BugParty page go?
  28 17:08:00 <GregoryNoel>  ???
  29 17:08:09 <GregoryNoel>  Still there, as far as I know.
  30 17:08:15 <stevenknight> re: 2047, we were just zeroing in on me taking a look at how impactive it would be to turn them back into warnings
  31 17:08:32 <stevenknight> or not back, since this is actually a new error message
  32 17:08:51 <garyo-home>   oh yeah, duh
  33 17:09:23 <garyo-home>   Steven: any sense of what would happen if we just warn and let it try to link?
  34 17:09:24 <bdbaddog>     seems like a regression, sounds like making it a warning would be the right thing to do. if it can work in some toolchains.
  35 17:09:50 <garyo-home>   (I guess it has to choose C++ or Fortran; that's the hard part)
  36 17:09:51 <stevenknight> exactly
  37 17:10:02 <stevenknight> they may get an error if the toolchain doesn't allow this interoperability
  38 17:10:08 <stevenknight> which is what David was trying to guard against
  39 17:10:23 <stevenknight> but a little drastically
  40 17:10:26 <GregoryNoel>  In the long run, it should be made 'smarter still' but is that this bug or another one?
  41 17:10:26 <garyo-home>   Do you know which linker it used to use in that case?
  42 17:10:33 <garyo-home>   Another one, Greg.
  43 17:10:41 <garyo-home>   IMHO
  44 17:10:54 <GregoryNoel>  OK, I'll add it when I clear these out
  45 17:10:54 <stevenknight> okay, give it me to make it a warning for 1.0
  46 17:11:05 <stevenknight> and i'll delay it to later if it looks too impactive
  47 17:10:59 <GregoryNoel>  done
  48 17:11:09 <garyo-home>   good.
  49 17:11:56 <garyo-home>   2050 is hard I think.
  50 17:12:08 <GregoryNoel>  and nasty
  51 17:12:11 <stevenknight> yeah
  52 17:12:20 <stevenknight> just trying to get caught up with the code in it
  53 17:12:46 <GregoryNoel>  There's clearly a deadlock, but it's not clear how to break it for the child.
  54 17:12:54 <garyo-home>   What happens if you try 'from errno import ENOENT, ENOTDIR' at top level, so nothing happens in execvpe?
  55 17:13:29 <GregoryNoel>  In brief, the lock is created in the parent, so it's held by the child, leading to a deadlock, since the child will never release it.
  56 17:13:55 <stevenknight> give this one to me as well, obviously
  57 17:14:09 <garyo-home>   The deadlock is in 'import' iiuc so maybe the fix is easy.
  58 17:14:25 <GregoryNoel>  Some of the problem is in the _Python_ libraries, since they don't expect to fork at that point
  59 17:14:29 <stevenknight> I can see if I can get Guido or Alex Martelli to advise
  60 17:14:34 <bdbaddog>     I think that could go into release notes? (2050) with a if you do this it my hurt warning, to be addressed later?
  61 17:15:12 <garyo-home>   Is there a reproducible testcase for this?
  62 17:15:03 <stevenknight> one nagging thing is bothering me about Benoit's analysis here...
  63 17:15:16 <stevenknight> it suggests that "import" itself isn't thread safe
  64 17:15:28 <stevenknight> or "import" of certain very well-used modules
  65 17:15:41 <stevenknight> if that were the case, I don't think SCons would be the only thing with these symptoms
  66 17:15:38 <GregoryNoel>  No, it's not fork-safe, not the same thing
  67 17:15:53 <stevenknight> ah, right
  68 17:16:00 <stevenknight> but still
  69 17:16:11 <stevenknight> it's not like we're the only Python-based application that forks things
  70 17:16:17 <bdbaddog>     I thought that you couldn't run python builders in parallel because of the GIL
  71 17:16:29 <bdbaddog>     (aka in separate threads)
  72 17:16:41 <bdbaddog>     well. python threads.
  73 17:16:55 <GregoryNoel>  separate threads are in the same process so the lock will be released
  74 17:17:31 <GregoryNoel>  it's the child thread that thinks it has the lock but doesn't
  75 17:18:01 <garyo-home>   In any case, my opinion is it should be investigated more, but maybe not fixed til 1.x, p1.
  76 17:18:10 <stevenknight> the thing that really concerns me is that in some of those cases (import within function)
  77 17:18:13 <GregoryNoel>  If Guido or Alex can help, that would be the way to go
  78 17:18:31 <stevenknight> the import was moved thre because scoping rules weren't letting it get imported at the global module level
  79 17:19:00 <stevenknight> i agree with gary:  1.x p1
  80 17:19:07 <stevenknight> and with Greg re: getting help
  81 17:19:05 <GregoryNoel>  done
  82 17:19:43 <GregoryNoel>  2051, consensus?
  83 17:19:54 <garyo-home>   2051: consensus 1.x p3?
  84 17:20:05 <stevenknight> i was looking at this again this morning
  85 17:20:24 <stevenknight> since we don't supply an egg, he must have packaged/installed it himself
  86 17:21:04 <stevenknight> it shouldn't hurt anything to add the code he's suggesting
  87 17:21:29 <stevenknight> but the fact that "easy" install makes you do this sucks
  88 17:21:46 <stevenknight> of course, we are doing something different than most Python packages
  89 17:21:54 <stevenknight> okay, i'll stop ranting
  90 17:22:09 <stevenknight> 1.x p3
  91 17:22:23 <bdbaddog>     1.x p3
  92 17:22:37 <garyo-home>   sure
  93 17:22:39 <GregoryNoel>  done
  94 17:22:44 <GregoryNoel>  2052
  95 17:22:58 <stevenknight> gotta get on the bus, may have to reconnect
  96 17:23:00 <garyo-home>   2052 must be trivial?
  97 17:23:01 *      stevenknight has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  98 17:23:38 <GregoryNoel>  I don't use M$'s Java wanabe, so I have no clue
  99 17:23:51 <garyo-home>   Probably just forgetting to check the length of the parsed version strings or something.
 100 17:24:02 <garyo-home>   GregoryNoel: :-)
 101 17:24:32 <garyo-home>   I bet I could fix that, give it to me.  I think I have a machine with one of those .NET versions on it.
 102 17:24:52 <GregoryNoel>  works for me
 103 17:24:57 <bdbaddog>     +1
 104 17:25:01 <GregoryNoel>  1.x?
 105 17:25:21 *      sgk_ (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.130) has joined #scons
 106 17:25:31 <sgk_> okay, i'm back
 107 17:25:40 <sgk_> what are we up to?
 108 17:25:43 <garyo-home>   I'd say 1.x, but the short-named .NET versions are the real releases...
 109 17:25:44 <bdbaddog>     2052
 110 17:25:57 <GregoryNoel>  Gary wants 2052, but not settled on milestone or priority
 111 17:26:00 <bdbaddog>     .net version number issue.
 112 17:26:01 <garyo-home>   so it may bite us if not fixed in 1.0.
 113 17:26:13 <sgk_> right
 114 17:26:16 <bdbaddog>     yeah. if it's trivial 1.0
 115 17:26:30 <sgk_> gary, do you want to take a look for 1.0 and back off if it looks risky?
 116 17:26:39 <garyo-home>   ok, sorry I have to go guys, we're almost done with that spreadsheet anyway.
 117 17:26:54 <sgk_> okay, thanks
 118 17:27:19 <GregoryNoel>  I'll set it to 1.x p1
 119 17:27:27 <sgk_> 1.0 p2, gary to back off if it's risky
 120 17:27:38 <sgk_> okay, p1
 121 17:28:01 <GregoryNoel>  OK, I guess.
 122 17:28:05 <GregoryNoel>  2056?
 123 17:28:04 <sgk_> BTW, i have a question re: our target milestones
 124 17:28:17 <sgk_> did we change our interpretation?
 125 17:28:26 <GregoryNoel>  Not as far as I know
 126 17:28:34 <sgk_> yesterday and today we are treating them as "1.0 means it should go in *for* 1.0"
 127 17:28:40 <sgk_> right?
 128 17:28:43 <GregoryNoel>  Yes
 129 17:29:11 <GregoryNoel>  1.x (note the x) means "during the 1.0 cycles"
 130 17:29:12 <sgk_> but we've got a whole bunch of 1.0 target milestone things already that clearly aren't happening in the slim time between 0.98.x and 1.0
 131 17:29:44 <GregoryNoel>  _I_ didn't put them there; others decided they should be; I've pushed for 1.x
 132 17:30:13 <GregoryNoel>  but I basically agree with your point
 133 17:30:18 <sgk_> oh, wait, i didn't look closely enough
 134 17:30:18 <bdbaddog>     why don't we wrap up the spreadsheet and take a quick look at what's left for 1.0 ?
 135 17:30:38 <GregoryNoel>  I'd suggest that the next bug party triage 1.0 more closely.
 136 17:30:40 <sgk_> most of these are doc issues which we did agree we'd work on while 0.98.x is soaking
 137 17:30:55 <sgk_> yeah, sorry to derail
 138 17:30:59 <sgk_> back to 2056
 139 17:31:20 <bdbaddog>     I know there was traffic on the mailing list for that, did someone propose a fix?
 140 17:31:44 <GregoryNoel>  I'm not opposed to a 0.98.5, but _six_ release candidates is a lot
 141 17:31:53 <sgk_> i found a guy's blog with a technique for propagating %ERRORLEVEL% even when using setlocal+endlocal
 142 17:32:28 <bdbaddog>     6 RC's better than 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2 in a week though.. :)
 143 17:32:35 <sgk_> and we don't have a test case that explicitly tests scons.bat for things like this
 144 17:32:43 <GregoryNoel>  bdbaddog: point taken
 145 17:32:46 <sgk_> just the scons wrapper itself
 146 17:33:14 <sgk_> me, 1.0 (or 0.98.5), p1
 147 17:33:23 <bdbaddog>     1.0p1 sounds good to me.
 148 17:33:26 <GregoryNoel>  done
 149 17:34:02 <sgk_> 2057:  the same big issue it's always been
 150 17:34:12 <sgk_> looks like consensus is 1.x and p3
 151 17:34:24 <GregoryNoel>  yeah, but who?
 152 17:34:41 <GregoryNoel>  someone needs to think about the criteria and write them up
 153 17:34:57 <sgk_> i'll take it
 154 17:35:13 <GregoryNoel>  no no no, someone _else_; you know too much about the internals
 155 17:35:21 <sgk_> ok...
 156 17:35:27 *      sgk_ is properly chastened...  :-)
 157 17:35:43 *      GregoryNoel couldn't spell that on a bet
 158 17:36:15 <bdbaddog>     steven how ugly will it be to understand the code issueing that message?
 159 17:36:29 <GregoryNoel>  Nasty
 160 17:36:47 <bdbaddog>     nasty understand everything, or understand 1/2 of everything?
 161 17:37:07 <sgk_> it does get a little involved
 162 17:37:20 <sgk_> but what about writing up requirements not from a code perspective
 163 17:37:24 <sgk_> but purely from a user perspective
 164 17:37:24 <GregoryNoel>  The underlying problem is what do do if a Builder isn't configured, so there's no way to recognize the suffix
 165 17:37:49 <sgk_> then refine that
 166 17:38:03 <bdbaddog>     so if I have file abc.xyz and nobodies registered .xyz, what to do?
 167 17:38:07 <sgk_> that might be fruitful without having to grok a whole bunch of the code
 168 17:38:15 <GregoryNoel>  bdbaddog: exactly
 169 17:38:32 <GregoryNoel>  ("nobody's")
 170 17:38:59 <bdbaddog>     GregoryNoel: you are correct sir. :)
 171 17:39:17 <GregoryNoel>  I guess I can draft something, but I'm not sure I'd get all the nuances
 172 17:39:57 <GregoryNoel>  bdbaddog: don't call me "sir" -- I worked for a living! {;-}
 173 17:39:57 <sgk_> that's okay, if it gets us closer to the goal
 174 17:40:20 <GregoryNoel>  OK, me, when?  1.x?
 175 17:40:26 <bdbaddog>     Greg I'd be willing to be sounding board on that for you.
 176 17:40:40 <GregoryNoel>  Thanks
 177 17:40:45 <bdbaddog>     1.x
 178 17:40:58 <GregoryNoel>  although I'm sure there will be lots of drafts :-(
 179 17:41:07 <bdbaddog>     google docs is your friend.. :)
 180 17:41:23 <GregoryNoel>  or the wiki...
 181 17:41:49 <bdbaddog>     :)
 182 17:41:54 <GregoryNoel>  onward?
 183 17:41:56 <sgk_> yes
 184 17:42:12 <sgk_> that's it for the spreadsheet
 185 17:42:29 <sgk_> but i think a few more have come in since it was generated
 186 17:42:31 <GregoryNoel>  last one, 2058?
 187 17:42:32 <sgk_> hang on...
 188 17:42:37 <sgk_> oh, right
 189 17:43:05 <GregoryNoel>  I haven't looked at the new logos he developed, but the first set looked good
 190 17:43:15 <sgk_> cool
 191 17:43:36 <sgk_> i'd say let him check in directly
 192 17:43:40 <GregoryNoel>  I think it should go to Gary to set up a web page for them
 193 17:44:01 <sgk_> cool, that sounds better
 194 17:43:59 <GregoryNoel>  but the problem is setting a policy and a license for them
 195 17:44:18 <sgk_> aha
 196 17:44:34 <bdbaddog>     do we need to file a trademark on it?
 197 17:44:50 <GregoryNoel>  possibly
 198 17:45:02 <sgk_> not sure
 199 17:45:01 <GregoryNoel>  need legal advice, for sure
 200 17:45:15 <sgk_> we can check with the SFLC, we're "clients"
 201 17:45:28 <GregoryNoel>  yes, but you have to do that
 202 17:45:55 <sgk_> okay, then make this one a task for Gary to set up the web site
 203 17:46:13 <sgk_> and how about another task for me to check with SFLC re: trademark and/or licensing issues
 204 17:46:29 <GregoryNoel>  done
 205 17:46:11 <GregoryNoel>  And another related issue, probably needs to be well-started by 1.0, is getting releases on file for everyone who has ever submitted code
 206 17:47:13 <GregoryNoel>  and I'll create a task for the disclaimers as well
 207 17:47:10 <sgk_> re: releases:  we're helped by our non-restrictive license
 208 17:47:29 <sgk_> contributors don't have to actually assign code ownership to us
 209 17:47:53 <sgk_> they just have to license it to us
 210 17:48:08 <sgk_> that tends to make corporate lawyers less jumpy
 211 17:48:22 <GregoryNoel>  and exactly who has done that so far?
 212 17:48:29 <GregoryNoel>  anybody?
 213 17:48:35 <sgk_> a handful
 214 17:48:47 <GregoryNoel>  didn't know that
 215 17:48:54 <sgk_> or rather, a handful have actually assigned ownership
 216 17:48:54 <sgk_> early contributors like Anthony and Charles
 217 17:49:15 <sgk_> I think Gary sent me one as well
 218 17:49:22 <bdbaddog>     Should we put up a page listing contributions and assignments?
 219 17:49:37 <sgk_> not a bad idea
 220 17:49:50 <GregoryNoel>  hmmm...  not so sure
 221 17:50:08 <sgk_> ?
 222 17:50:09 <bdbaddog>     do all the svn comments indicate who contributed code as most was checked in by Steven?
 223 17:51:12 <sgk_> probably upwards of 90%-95% (or more) owing to occasional lapses
 224 17:52:01 <GregoryNoel>  but there are hundreds of people; if we miss any, it could be a problem
 225 17:52:13 <sgk_> legal or PR?
 226 17:52:17 <bdbaddog>     BTW I just check tigris, there are 39 1.0 bugs. most docs.
 227 17:52:20 <bdbaddog>     Legal..
 228 17:52:40 <bdbaddog>     look at the driver issue between linux and openbsd. big stink.
 229 17:53:22 <bdbaddog>     Steven,  would all the patches be in the mailing list archive?
 230 17:53:28 <sgk_> yes, should be
 231 17:53:44 <GregoryNoel>  probably the starting point is to try to get a list of the contributors; the release notes should help
 232 17:54:17 <sgk_> iirc, i think we've got 150+ unique names in the change log
 233 17:54:20 <bdbaddog>     Maybe float an email to users and dev mailing list asking for assignment or licensing from any patches contributed?
 234 17:54:57 <GregoryNoel>  Yes, for those who are still with us
 235 17:55:08 <sgk_> right
 236 17:55:14 <GregoryNoel>  but I'll bet more than half will have to be tracked down
 237 17:55:35 <sgk_> easily
 238 17:56:13 <sgk_> but we're pretty penny-ante, and it helps to at least be able to show good faith efforts to try to get approval
 239 17:55:57 <GregoryNoel>  Mozilla had to go through this; do we have any contacts with them that far back?
 240 17:56:27 <sgk_> with Mozilla?  not directly
 241 17:56:41 <sgk_> certainly not related to any SCons work
 242 17:56:38 <GregoryNoel>  They tracked me down through three address changes; not an easy job
 243 17:56:46 <sgk_> wow
 244 17:57:16 <GregoryNoel>  good faith is one thing, but I hope we won't be penny-ante forever
 245 17:57:26 <bdbaddog>     :)
 246 17:57:57 <sgk_> good point...
 247 17:58:31 <sgk_> well, i can dig up the existing releases
 248 17:58:41 <sgk_> and we can start a spreadsheet tracking everyone
 249 17:58:53 <GregoryNoel>  I know Mozilla went to the pain of removing any code they couldn't resolve
 250 17:59:13 <GregoryNoel>  and reverse-engineering any they wanted to keep
 251 17:59:13 <bdbaddog>     yes. and you have to do that clean room, it can be a huge pain.
 252 17:59:15 <sgk_> the lawyer at SFLC said in practice if you get the big contributors you're pretty safe
 253 17:59:48 <sgk_> i can make that discussion available too (email)
 254 17:59:50 <GregoryNoel>  I'm sure that would cover 99.44% of the code, but it only takes one
 255 18:00:27 <sgk_> sure
 256 18:00:29 <GregoryNoel>  send a form to me; I haven't signed one yet
 257 18:00:33 <bdbaddog>     Well lets do what we can, and perhaps when Steven chats with SFLC about the icon, he can bring up the issue?
 258 18:00:34 <sgk_> it can help w/prioritizing though
 259 18:01:23 <GregoryNoel>  how?
 260 18:01:58 <sgk_> start with the biggest contributors
 261 18:02:12 <GregoryNoel>  yes
 262 18:03:32 <GregoryNoel>  Long silence; have we said all that can be said now?
 263 18:03:46 <sgk_> i think so
 264 18:04:36 <GregoryNoel>  OK, then there's probably not a lot of use starting on the next spreadsheet tonight, so I'm going to go get dinner
 265 18:03:58 <sgk_> hang on, doing one last check for newer issues
 266 18:04:53 <GregoryNoel>  We'll get those next week
 267 18:05:01 <bdbaddog>     ko.
 268 18:05:15 <sgk_> even if they might require another 0.98.x?
 269 18:05:33 <sgk_> fair enough
 270 18:06:03 <sgk_> if anything looks really urgent we can convene by ML or IRC as necessary
 271 18:06:09 <sgk_> thanks...
 272 18:06:09 <GregoryNoel>  yep
 273 18:06:23 <GregoryNoel>  OK, see you guys later
 274 18:06:31 <sgk_> later
 275 18:06:38 <bdbaddog>     l8r.
 276 18:06:43 *      bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has left #scons
 277 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-05-20 (last edited 2008-05-23 18:25:42 by ip68-7-77-81)