09:43:15 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
16:59:51 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-20f1d53866f4ad08) has joined #scons
16:59:53 GregoryNoel Who's here for the bug party?
16:59:59 stevenknight me me me
17:00:19 bdbaddog I though it was yesterday.
17:00:30 stevenknight we had some follow-up to do
17:00:38 GregoryNoel followup with the rest of the current issues tonight
17:01:23 GregoryNoel Gary is marked away; are you really here?
17:01:38 stevenknight you == ?
17:01:47 GregoryNoel you == Gary
17:02:14 GregoryNoel he said he'd be here; shall we wait a couple of minutes?
17:02:44 stevenknight sure, i can't see waiting as a problem
17:03:00 stevenknight we should have plenty of time
17:02:56 GregoryNoel Are you on the bus yet?
17:03:44 stevenknight doesn't come until 5:25
17:04:03 stevenknight i should only have a slight hiccough when i change from land-based wifi to mobile
17:04:28 GregoryNoel Bill, we'll pick up with 2047 in the current issues, if you can join us
17:04:40 bdbaddog sure. lemme clock out.
17:04:52 garyo-home Hi, I'm here now.
17:05:14 bdbaddog which spreadsheet are we looking at?
17:05:26 GregoryNoel current issues of current issues
17:06:35 GregoryNoel I'm going to grab a Coke while we're getting set up
17:06:38 garyo-home For 2047 we were discussing whether it could just be a warning, iirc
17:06:53 garyo-home at least for 1.0?
17:07:22 stevenknight bdbaddog: "Current issues"
17:07:44 bdbaddog got it, row 339 in the spreadshhet
17:07:49 garyo-home Hey, where did the queries in the BugParty page go?
17:08:00 GregoryNoel ???
17:08:09 GregoryNoel Still there, as far as I know.
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
17:08:32 stevenknight or not back, since this is actually a new error message
17:08:51 garyo-home oh yeah, duh
17:09:23 garyo-home Steven: any sense of what would happen if we just warn and let it try to link?
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.
17:09:50 garyo-home (I guess it has to choose C++ or Fortran; that's the hard part)
17:09:51 stevenknight exactly
17:10:02 stevenknight they may get an error if the toolchain doesn't allow this interoperability
17:10:08 stevenknight which is what David was trying to guard against
17:10:23 stevenknight but a little drastically
17:10:26 GregoryNoel In the long run, it should be made 'smarter still' but is that this bug or another one?
17:10:26 garyo-home Do you know which linker it used to use in that case?
17:10:33 garyo-home Another one, Greg.
17:10:41 garyo-home IMHO
17:10:54 GregoryNoel OK, I'll add it when I clear these out
17:10:54 stevenknight okay, give it me to make it a warning for 1.0
17:11:05 stevenknight and i'll delay it to later if it looks too impactive
17:10:59 GregoryNoel done
17:11:09 garyo-home good.
17:11:56 garyo-home 2050 is hard I think.
17:12:08 GregoryNoel and nasty
17:12:11 stevenknight yeah
17:12:20 stevenknight just trying to get caught up with the code in it
17:12:46 GregoryNoel There's clearly a deadlock, but it's not clear how to break it for the child.
17:12:54 garyo-home What happens if you try 'from errno import ENOENT, ENOTDIR' at top level, so nothing happens in execvpe?
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.
17:13:55 stevenknight give this one to me as well, obviously
17:14:09 garyo-home The deadlock is in 'import' iiuc so maybe the fix is easy.
17:14:25 GregoryNoel Some of the problem is in the _Python_ libraries, since they don't expect to fork at that point
17:14:29 stevenknight I can see if I can get Guido or Alex Martelli to advise
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?
17:15:12 garyo-home Is there a reproducible testcase for this?
17:15:03 stevenknight one nagging thing is bothering me about Benoit's analysis here...
17:15:16 stevenknight it suggests that "import" itself isn't thread safe
17:15:28 stevenknight or "import" of certain very well-used modules
17:15:41 stevenknight if that were the case, I don't think SCons would be the only thing with these symptoms
17:15:38 GregoryNoel No, it's not fork-safe, not the same thing
17:15:53 stevenknight ah, right
17:16:00 stevenknight but still
17:16:11 stevenknight it's not like we're the only Python-based application that forks things
17:16:17 bdbaddog I thought that you couldn't run python builders in parallel because of the GIL
17:16:29 bdbaddog (aka in separate threads)
17:16:41 bdbaddog well. python threads.
17:16:55 GregoryNoel separate threads are in the same process so the lock will be released
17:17:31 GregoryNoel it's the child thread that thinks it has the lock but doesn't
17:18:01 garyo-home In any case, my opinion is it should be investigated more, but maybe not fixed til 1.x, p1.
17:18:10 stevenknight the thing that really concerns me is that in some of those cases (import within function)
17:18:13 GregoryNoel If Guido or Alex can help, that would be the way to go
17:18:31 stevenknight the import was moved thre because scoping rules weren't letting it get imported at the global module level
17:19:00 stevenknight i agree with gary: 1.x p1
17:19:07 stevenknight and with Greg re: getting help
17:19:05 GregoryNoel done
17:19:43 GregoryNoel 2051, consensus?
17:19:54 garyo-home 2051: consensus 1.x p3?
17:20:05 stevenknight i was looking at this again this morning
17:20:24 stevenknight since we don't supply an egg, he must have packaged/installed it himself
17:21:04 stevenknight it shouldn't hurt anything to add the code he's suggesting
17:21:29 stevenknight but the fact that "easy" install makes you do this sucks
17:21:46 stevenknight of course, we are doing something different than most Python packages
17:21:54 stevenknight okay, i'll stop ranting
17:22:09 stevenknight 1.x p3
17:22:23 bdbaddog 1.x p3
17:22:37 garyo-home sure
17:22:39 GregoryNoel done
17:22:44 GregoryNoel 2052
17:22:58 stevenknight gotta get on the bus, may have to reconnect
17:23:00 garyo-home 2052 must be trivial?
17:23:01 * stevenknight has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep")
17:23:38 GregoryNoel I don't use M$'s Java wanabe, so I have no clue
17:23:51 garyo-home Probably just forgetting to check the length of the parsed version strings or something.
17:24:02 garyo-home GregoryNoel: :-)
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.
17:24:52 GregoryNoel works for me
17:24:57 bdbaddog +1
17:25:01 GregoryNoel 1.x?
17:25:21 * sgk_ (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.130) has joined #scons
17:25:31 sgk_ okay, i'm back
17:25:40 sgk_ what are we up to?
17:25:43 garyo-home I'd say 1.x, but the short-named .NET versions are the real releases...
17:25:44 bdbaddog 2052
17:25:57 GregoryNoel Gary wants 2052, but not settled on milestone or priority
17:26:00 bdbaddog .net version number issue.
17:26:01 garyo-home so it may bite us if not fixed in 1.0.
17:26:13 sgk_ right
17:26:16 bdbaddog yeah. if it's trivial 1.0
17:26:30 sgk_ gary, do you want to take a look for 1.0 and back off if it looks risky?
17:26:39 garyo-home ok, sorry I have to go guys, we're almost done with that spreadsheet anyway.
17:26:54 sgk_ okay, thanks
17:27:19 GregoryNoel I'll set it to 1.x p1
17:27:27 sgk_ 1.0 p2, gary to back off if it's risky
17:27:38 sgk_ okay, p1
17:28:01 GregoryNoel OK, I guess.
17:28:05 GregoryNoel 2056?
17:28:04 sgk_ BTW, i have a question re: our target milestones
17:28:17 sgk_ did we change our interpretation?
17:28:26 GregoryNoel Not as far as I know
17:28:34 sgk_ yesterday and today we are treating them as "1.0 means it should go in *for* 1.0"
17:28:40 sgk_ right?
17:28:43 GregoryNoel Yes
17:29:11 GregoryNoel 1.x (note the x) means "during the 1.0 cycles"
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
17:29:44 GregoryNoel _I_ didn't put them there; others decided they should be; I've pushed for 1.x
17:30:13 GregoryNoel but I basically agree with your point
17:30:18 sgk_ oh, wait, i didn't look closely enough
17:30:18 bdbaddog why don't we wrap up the spreadsheet and take a quick look at what's left for 1.0 ?
17:30:38 GregoryNoel I'd suggest that the next bug party triage 1.0 more closely.
17:30:40 sgk_ most of these are doc issues which we did agree we'd work on while 0.98.x is soaking
17:30:55 sgk_ yeah, sorry to derail
17:30:59 sgk_ back to 2056
17:31:20 bdbaddog I know there was traffic on the mailing list for that, did someone propose a fix?
17:31:44 GregoryNoel I'm not opposed to a 0.98.5, but _six_ release candidates is a lot
17:31:53 sgk_ i found a guy's blog with a technique for propagating %ERRORLEVEL% even when using setlocal+endlocal
17:32:28 bdbaddog 6 RC's better than 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2 in a week though.. :)
17:32:35 sgk_ and we don't have a test case that explicitly tests scons.bat for things like this
17:32:43 GregoryNoel bdbaddog: point taken
17:32:46 sgk_ just the scons wrapper itself
17:33:14 sgk_ me, 1.0 (or 0.98.5), p1
17:33:23 bdbaddog 1.0p1 sounds good to me.
17:33:26 GregoryNoel done
17:34:02 sgk_ 2057: the same big issue it's always been
17:34:12 sgk_ looks like consensus is 1.x and p3
17:34:24 GregoryNoel yeah, but who?
17:34:41 GregoryNoel someone needs to think about the criteria and write them up
17:34:57 sgk_ i'll take it
17:35:13 GregoryNoel no no no, someone _else_; you know too much about the internals
17:35:21 sgk_ ok...
17:35:27 * sgk_ is properly chastened... :-)
17:35:43 * GregoryNoel couldn't spell that on a bet
17:36:15 bdbaddog steven how ugly will it be to understand the code issueing that message?
17:36:29 GregoryNoel Nasty
17:36:47 bdbaddog nasty understand everything, or understand 1/2 of everything?
17:37:07 sgk_ it does get a little involved
17:37:20 sgk_ but what about writing up requirements not from a code perspective
17:37:24 sgk_ but purely from a user perspective
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
17:37:49 sgk_ then refine that
17:38:03 bdbaddog so if I have file abc.xyz and nobodies registered .xyz, what to do?
17:38:07 sgk_ that might be fruitful without having to grok a whole bunch of the code
17:38:15 GregoryNoel bdbaddog: exactly
17:38:32 GregoryNoel ("nobody's")
17:38:59 bdbaddog GregoryNoel: you are correct sir. :)
17:39:17 GregoryNoel I guess I can draft something, but I'm not sure I'd get all the nuances
17:39:57 GregoryNoel bdbaddog: don't call me "sir" -- I worked for a living! {;-}
17:39:57 sgk_ that's okay, if it gets us closer to the goal
17:40:20 GregoryNoel OK, me, when? 1.x?
17:40:26 bdbaddog Greg I'd be willing to be sounding board on that for you.
17:40:40 GregoryNoel Thanks
17:40:45 bdbaddog 1.x
17:40:58 GregoryNoel although I'm sure there will be lots of drafts :-(
17:41:07 bdbaddog google docs is your friend.. :)
17:41:23 GregoryNoel or the wiki...
17:41:49 bdbaddog :)
17:41:54 GregoryNoel onward?
17:41:56 sgk_ yes
17:42:12 sgk_ that's it for the spreadsheet
17:42:29 sgk_ but i think a few more have come in since it was generated
17:42:31 GregoryNoel last one, 2058?
17:42:32 sgk_ hang on...
17:42:37 sgk_ oh, right
17:43:05 GregoryNoel I haven't looked at the new logos he developed, but the first set looked good
17:43:15 sgk_ cool
17:43:36 sgk_ i'd say let him check in directly
17:43:40 GregoryNoel I think it should go to Gary to set up a web page for them
17:44:01 sgk_ cool, that sounds better
17:43:59 GregoryNoel but the problem is setting a policy and a license for them
17:44:18 sgk_ aha
17:44:34 bdbaddog do we need to file a trademark on it?
17:44:50 GregoryNoel possibly
17:45:02 sgk_ not sure
17:45:01 GregoryNoel need legal advice, for sure
17:45:15 sgk_ we can check with the SFLC, we're "clients"
17:45:28 GregoryNoel yes, but you have to do that
17:45:55 sgk_ okay, then make this one a task for Gary to set up the web site
17:46:13 sgk_ and how about another task for me to check with SFLC re: trademark and/or licensing issues
17:46:29 GregoryNoel done
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
17:47:13 GregoryNoel and I'll create a task for the disclaimers as well
17:47:10 sgk_ re: releases: we're helped by our non-restrictive license
17:47:29 sgk_ contributors don't have to actually assign code ownership to us
17:47:53 sgk_ they just have to license it to us
17:48:08 sgk_ that tends to make corporate lawyers less jumpy
17:48:22 GregoryNoel and exactly who has done that so far?
17:48:29 GregoryNoel anybody?
17:48:35 sgk_ a handful
17:48:47 GregoryNoel didn't know that
17:48:54 sgk_ or rather, a handful have actually assigned ownership
17:48:54 sgk_ early contributors like Anthony and Charles
17:49:15 sgk_ I think Gary sent me one as well
17:49:22 bdbaddog Should we put up a page listing contributions and assignments?
17:49:37 sgk_ not a bad idea
17:49:50 GregoryNoel hmmm... not so sure
17:50:08 sgk_ ?
17:50:09 bdbaddog do all the svn comments indicate who contributed code as most was checked in by Steven?
17:51:12 sgk_ probably upwards of 90%-95% (or more) owing to occasional lapses
17:52:01 GregoryNoel but there are hundreds of people; if we miss any, it could be a problem
17:52:13 sgk_ legal or PR?
17:52:17 bdbaddog BTW I just check tigris, there are 39 1.0 bugs. most docs.
17:52:20 bdbaddog Legal..
17:52:40 bdbaddog look at the driver issue between linux and openbsd. big stink.
17:53:22 bdbaddog Steven, would all the patches be in the mailing list archive?
17:53:28 sgk_ yes, should be
17:53:44 GregoryNoel probably the starting point is to try to get a list of the contributors; the release notes should help
17:54:17 sgk_ iirc, i think we've got 150+ unique names in the change log
17:54:20 bdbaddog Maybe float an email to users and dev mailing list asking for assignment or licensing from any patches contributed?
17:54:57 GregoryNoel Yes, for those who are still with us
17:55:08 sgk_ right
17:55:14 GregoryNoel but I'll bet more than half will have to be tracked down
17:55:35 sgk_ easily
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
17:55:57 GregoryNoel Mozilla had to go through this; do we have any contacts with them that far back?
17:56:27 sgk_ with Mozilla? not directly
17:56:41 sgk_ certainly not related to any SCons work
17:56:38 GregoryNoel They tracked me down through three address changes; not an easy job
17:56:46 sgk_ wow
17:57:16 GregoryNoel good faith is one thing, but I hope we won't be penny-ante forever
17:57:26 bdbaddog :)
17:57:57 sgk_ good point...
17:58:31 sgk_ well, i can dig up the existing releases
17:58:41 sgk_ and we can start a spreadsheet tracking everyone
17:58:53 GregoryNoel I know Mozilla went to the pain of removing any code they couldn't resolve
17:59:13 GregoryNoel and reverse-engineering any they wanted to keep
17:59:13 bdbaddog yes. and you have to do that clean room, it can be a huge pain.
17:59:15 sgk_ the lawyer at SFLC said in practice if you get the big contributors you're pretty safe
17:59:48 sgk_ i can make that discussion available too (email)
17:59:50 GregoryNoel I'm sure that would cover 99.44% of the code, but it only takes one
18:00:27 sgk_ sure
18:00:29 GregoryNoel send a form to me; I haven't signed one yet
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?
18:00:34 sgk_ it can help w/prioritizing though
18:01:23 GregoryNoel how?
18:01:58 sgk_ start with the biggest contributors
18:02:12 GregoryNoel yes
18:03:32 GregoryNoel Long silence; have we said all that can be said now?
18:03:46 sgk_ i think so
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
18:03:58 sgk_ hang on, doing one last check for newer issues
18:04:53 GregoryNoel We'll get those next week
18:05:01 bdbaddog ko.
18:05:15 sgk_ even if they might require another 0.98.x?
18:05:33 sgk_ fair enough
18:06:03 sgk_ if anything looks really urgent we can convene by ML or IRC as necessary
18:06:09 sgk_ thanks...
18:06:09 GregoryNoel yep
18:06:23 GregoryNoel OK, see you guys later
18:06:31 sgk_ later
18:06:38 bdbaddog l8r.
18:06:43 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has left #scons

BugParty/IrcLog2008-05-20 (last edited 2008-05-23 18:25:42 by GregNoel)