Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   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)