| 13:05:55 | * | Azverkan (n=fakeuser@209.172.105.155) has joined #scons |
| 16:48:00 | * | stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-46e723d28b1b3479) has joined #scons |
| 16:55:25 | stevenknight | GregNoel: are you here yet? |
| 16:55:53 | * | garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons |
| 16:58:09 | garyo-home | hi folks |
| 16:58:45 | stevenknight | hi gary |
| 16:58:57 | stevenknight | Greg doesn't seem to be here yet |
| 16:59:55 | garyo-home | ok, I'm just starting in on the spreadsheet. |
| 16:59:55 | GregNoel | Hello, am I late? |
| 17:00:01 | garyo-home | nope, just in time. |
| 17:00:09 | stevenknight | hi Greg |
| 17:00:26 | GregNoel | We have relatives in town; we were out with them and just got back. |
| 17:00:41 | stevenknight | ah, special thanks for making it, then |
| 17:00:56 | GregNoel | Give me a sec to get set up |
| 17:00:47 | stevenknight | hope we're not taking you away too much |
| 17:01:06 | GregNoel | No, we'll see them again tomorrow. |
| 17:02:13 | stevenknight | BTW, on the ReadWrite page, the 2007 Q1 link takes you to the same sheet as the Q4 link |
| 17:02:16 | stevenknight | or takes me there, anyway |
| 17:02:46 | stevenknight | unlikely we'll get that far today, of course, but for next week |
| 17:03:07 | GregNoel | Yeah, the spreadsheet isn't ready yet. |
| 17:03:02 | garyo-home | Unfortunately I only have 45 min tonight :-( |
| 17:03:14 | GregNoel | OK, I'm ready |
| 17:03:22 | stevenknight | okay, 2061 |
| 17:03:22 | GregNoel | Why only 45 min? |
| 17:03:35 | garyo-home | kid duty |
| 17:03:49 | * | stevenknight nods knowingly... |
| 17:04:14 | * | GregNoel gets to miss all that fun... |
| 17:04:21 | stevenknight | 2061: 1.x p3? |
| 17:04:24 | garyo-home | Before we talk about the actual issues, can I ask about 1.x vs. 2.x in general? |
| 17:04:29 | GregNoel | sure |
| 17:04:29 | stevenknight | sure |
| 17:04:33 | stevenknight | jinx |
| 17:04:33 | GregNoel | jinx |
| 17:04:42 | garyo-home | How much should we put into 1.x vs. deferring to 2.x? |
| 17:04:59 | GregNoel | Depends on how long you expect 1.x to last |
| 17:05:02 | garyo-home | 2061 is easy, for instance. But so are *lots* of others. |
| 17:05:07 | stevenknight | i think we'll need to rebalance 1.x once we get past 1.0 anyway |
| 17:05:16 | GregNoel | stevenknight, true |
| 17:05:16 | garyo-home | Greg: right. Is there a 2.0 schedule? |
| 17:05:44 | garyo-home | Are we thinking 2.0 this year for instance? |
| 17:05:46 | GregNoel | None, other than some people say one month and some say one year. Probably between the two. |
| 17:06:00 | stevenknight | yeah |
| 17:06:00 | garyo-home | Greg: OK, that's sort of my thought too. |
| 17:06:13 | stevenknight | my best guess is some time in Q4 |
| 17:06:19 | stevenknight | enough time for 1.x to soak |
| 17:06:22 | garyo-home | OK, then I say 2061 should be 1.x. |
| 17:06:30 | stevenknight | i'm okay with gut feel |
| 17:06:41 | stevenknight | if we'd "like" something in 1.x for any reason, mark it as such |
| 17:06:55 | stevenknight | we'll end up with too much 1.x, but then we just re-prioritize those to make it manageable |
| 17:06:53 | GregNoel | I assume that once 1.0 is out and we've killed a little more of the backlog, we'll look at 1.x (and maybe 2.x p1) and adjust. |
| 17:07:05 | * | stevenknight agrees w/GregNoel |
| 17:07:15 | stevenknight | so 2061: 1.x p3 |
| 17:07:43 | garyo-home | stevenknight: ok |
| 17:07:48 | GregNoel | Isn't 2061 the one that's just been on the mailing list? |
| 17:07:54 | stevenknight | 2062: moot, I went ahead and checked in my fix about half an hour ago... :-) |
| 17:08:06 | garyo-home | 2062: good |
| 17:08:19 | stevenknight | also already RESOLVED the issue |
| 17:08:26 | garyo-home | 2064 is also easy, so by same logic should be 1.x |
| 17:08:30 | stevenknight | 2064: consensus 1.x p3 |
| 17:08:31 | stevenknight | right |
| 17:08:46 | GregNoel | ok |
| 17:08:51 | garyo-home | 2064 ok |
| 17:08:53 | stevenknight | 2065: consensus 1.x p4, Rob Managan |
| 17:09:40 | garyo-home | 2066: VS8 is the current version, we should support it well if we can |
| 17:09:45 | garyo-home | (though I don't use it yet) |
| 17:09:55 | stevenknight | 2066: i'm conflicted |
| 17:10:09 | stevenknight | the fix looks like a no-brainer, but... |
| 17:10:11 | garyo-home | Then let's do it in 1.x early on |
| 17:10:24 | garyo-home | like 1.x p1? |
| 17:10:35 | stevenknight | yes, 1.x p1 |
| 17:10:39 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:10:47 | GregNoel | next is consensus |
| 17:10:53 | garyo-home | yes. |
| 17:10:55 | stevenknight | 2067: consensus dup |
| 17:11:01 | garyo-home | I'll take 2068, good idea. |
| 17:11:11 | stevenknight | 2068: cool, thanks |
| 17:11:16 | garyo-home | I'll take up details on the list. |
| 17:11:27 | stevenknight | i'd like p2 (since I need it too :-)) |
| 17:11:45 | garyo-home | OK, fine w/ me. |
| 17:11:55 | stevenknight | excellent, we're cruising |
| 17:12:02 | GregNoel | done with the "current" spreadsheet, then; move on to the next? |
| 17:12:03 | stevenknight | on to 2007 q4? |
| 17:12:47 | stevenknight | 1740: consensus research, David |
| 17:12:51 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:13:15 | stevenknight | 1741: 1.x p3, stevenknight |
| 17:13:27 | garyo-home | ok w/ me |
| 17:13:28 | GregNoel | ok |
| 17:14:05 | garyo-home | 1742 is a subprocess issue or something? |
| 17:14:36 | GregNoel | I saw it as an issue with assuming that setting CC forced the C compiler selection |
| 17:14:48 | stevenknight | 1742: i'm concerned it's a real problem that happens to be triggered by his weird stripped down CC = '' |
| 17:14:59 | stevenknight | hmm, let me look at it again w/that in mind -- hang on... |
| 17:15:26 | garyo-home | That code doesn't look right to me; the high 8 bits are supposed to be spawn status, the low 8 bits are return code |
| 17:15:54 | garyo-home | (or other way around, sorry) |
| 17:16:03 | stevenknight | but if it that code were that blatantly wrong, a lot of stuff would fail, not just this edge case |
| 17:16:20 | garyo-home | stevenknight: yeah, I take it back -- it's OK as written |
| 17:16:30 | stevenknight | i think the real problem here is that this compilation setting definitely shouldn't succeed |
| 17:16:42 | stevenknight | but we pass back a return value that suggests the test passed |
| 17:16:56 | GregNoel | No, setting CC is ignored, so TryXXX will succeed. |
| 17:17:14 | GregNoel | He's expecting that setting CC will _disable_ the C compiler |
| 17:17:30 | garyo-home | anyway, research is needed. |
| 17:17:58 | GregNoel | I'll take it. |
| 17:18:01 | garyo-home | But has to be fixed by 1.x one way or another, so that's my vote. |
| 17:18:12 | stevenknight | okay, i can go with 1.x |
| 17:18:16 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:18:39 | garyo-home | 1745, VS junk |
| 17:18:54 | stevenknight | 1745: basically, i'm going to take everything VS-related as research |
| 17:19:04 | garyo-home | OK w/ me, this is super low pri. |
| 17:19:24 | GregNoel | ok, stevenknight, research |
| 17:19:39 | stevenknight | yeah, i'm just going to revamp VS support pretty heavily |
| 17:19:44 | garyo-home | 1746: untangle threaded output |
| 17:19:55 | garyo-home | This is really hard, and error-prone. |
| 17:20:15 | GregNoel | It's a dup; mark it and triage that one. |
| 17:20:21 | stevenknight | i'm okay with dup |
| 17:20:21 | garyo-home | 2.x p3? |
| 17:20:28 | stevenknight | 2.x p3 |
| 17:20:29 | garyo-home | (ok, dup) |
| 17:20:37 | * | bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons |
| 17:20:38 | stevenknight | on 1183 is fine |
| 17:20:44 | stevenknight | hey bill |
| 17:20:48 | GregNoel | hi, bill |
| 17:20:50 | stevenknight | we're on th 2007 q4 spreadsheet |
| 17:20:52 | bdbaddog | Hi. |
| 17:20:57 | stevenknight | #1746, line 51 |
| 17:21:00 | garyo-home | Hi, Bill. |
| 17:21:02 | bdbaddog | oh yeah. forgot there's a bug party. |
| 17:21:22 | bdbaddog | I've gotta hit the road in like 10 minutes. So I'll be of no help today. sorry. |
| 17:21:22 | stevenknight | no problem, you're obviously welcome if you have cycles |
| 17:21:34 | stevenknight | that's cool |
| 17:21:34 | GregNoel | 2.x p3 on 1183; agreed. |
| 17:21:40 | stevenknight | done |
| 17:22:08 | stevenknight | 1747: documentation, 1.0 p5 (like a lot of other doc issues) |
| 17:22:17 | GregNoel | ok, done |
| 17:22:24 | garyo-home | I seem to have a few doc things; assign it to me. |
| 17:22:47 | stevenknight | 1748: 1.x p2 -- our code looks like it handles this right |
| 17:22:56 | stevenknight | i really suspect this is in custom code for this project |
| 17:23:15 | garyo-home | Push back, ask for testcase? |
| 17:23:24 | stevenknight | hmm, not a bad idea |
| 17:23:41 | stevenknight | oh, wait, unfortunately i think this is one where the *user* of a project submitted something to us |
| 17:23:54 | stevenknight | that does suggest pushing it back, having him contact the original project |
| 17:24:17 | stevenknight | i'll go ahead and answer the bug to that effect |
| 17:24:26 | GregNoel | how about me, research, and I'll untangle it. |
| 17:24:32 | GregNoel | I can try a test case. |
| 17:24:55 | stevenknight | if you want, sure, go ahead |
| 17:25:21 | GregNoel | done; next? |
| 17:25:22 | stevenknight | 1.x, p2, greg -- done |
| 17:25:40 | stevenknight | 1751: 1.x p3, me |
| 17:25:49 | stevenknight | i think it's related to the other above, and #2015 |
| 17:25:50 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:25:50 | garyo-home | agreed |
| 17:26:12 | stevenknight | 1753: visual studio: research, stevenknight |
| 17:26:15 | garyo-home | 1753: dup? |
| 17:26:27 | stevenknight | maybe, just assign it to me and i'll take care of it if so |
| 17:26:34 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:26:55 | stevenknight | 1754: i think i put my comment on the wrong item, i think i intended that for 1753 |
| 17:27:26 | garyo-home | 1754 looks right to me. |
| 17:27:29 | garyo-home | not a bug. |
| 17:28:03 | GregNoel | not a bug, a feature request. |
| 17:28:18 | stevenknight | right, maybe for a --clobber that will remove .sconsign* |
| 17:28:21 | stevenknight | or some such |
| 17:28:23 | garyo-home | (I put my .sconsign and .sconf_temp stuff in my build dir, that way if I wipe that out I start from scratch.) |
| 17:28:29 | stevenknight | good idea |
| 17:28:39 | garyo-home | stevenknight: ok w/ that I guess |
| 17:28:52 | GregNoel | scons -ccc |
| 17:28:58 | garyo-home | :-/ |
| 17:29:06 | stevenknight | sure, i could go with that |
| 17:29:15 | stevenknight | either way, FEATURE... |
| 17:29:16 | stevenknight | 2.x? |
| 17:29:20 | garyo-home | 2.x |
| 17:29:24 | stevenknight | p3 |
| 17:29:25 | GregNoel | We discussed this once before |
| 17:29:34 | GregNoel | ok, 2.x p3 |
| 17:29:44 | stevenknight | probably, they all start to blur after a while... :-) |
| 17:30:05 | stevenknight | 1755: 1.x p4, Greg |
| 17:30:14 | GregNoel | 1755, consensus |
| 17:30:30 | garyo-home | ok |
| 17:30:34 | stevenknight | 1760: research, Rob |
| 17:30:38 | GregNoel | yes |
| 17:30:56 | garyo-home | ok |
| 17:30:56 | stevenknight | 1761: gary, you okay with 1.x p3? |
| 17:31:01 | stevenknight | and still on your plate |
| 17:31:15 | garyo-home | ok, I'll try to do it. |
| 17:31:19 | garyo-home | It would be cool. |
| 17:31:28 | stevenknight | yes |
| 17:31:27 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:32:02 | GregNoel | 484 (actually 1762) |
| 17:32:09 | garyo-home | 1762: general problem with ancient OSes (IRIX tar is even worse) |
| 17:32:18 | stevenknight | 1762: 1.x p4, Greg, dup to 484 as you see fit |
| 17:32:38 | GregNoel | Tar will be replaced by tarfile as soon as 1.5.2 is obsolete |
| 17:32:43 | GregNoel | I already have it working |
| 17:32:47 | garyo-home | yay |
| 17:33:08 | stevenknight | i thought tarfile didn't show up until like Python 2.4 |
| 17:33:22 | GregNoel | I have backported it to 2.2 |
| 17:33:38 | stevenknight | GregNoel++ |
| 17:33:59 | stevenknight | and i was wrong anyway, it's 2.3 |
| 17:34:01 | stevenknight | cool |
| 17:34:06 | GregNoel | but I couldn't backport it to 1.5.2; too many @staticfoo annotations |
| 17:34:14 | stevenknight | makes sense |
| 17:34:27 | stevenknight | so this definitely 2.x, but high priority |
| 17:34:35 | GregNoel | agreed |
| 17:34:26 | garyo-home | 1763: I think is user error. |
| 17:34:35 | garyo-home | He wants this to work: |
| 17:34:42 | garyo-home | cplusplus = __import__('g++', globals(), locals(), []) |
| 17:34:51 | garyo-home | (sorry I'm getting ahead) |
| 17:34:56 | stevenknight | 162: 2.x p2, or even p1, your call |
| 17:34:59 | stevenknight | 1762 that is |
| 17:35:21 | stevenknight | 1763: oh, did i misread it? |
| 17:35:31 | stevenknight | I thought he was complaining about the Tool() call within the .generate() function |
| 17:35:44 | garyo-home | Seems like he thinks tools should appear in sys.path. |
| 17:35:48 | GregNoel | 1763, agreed |
| 17:36:06 | garyo-home | Give 1763 to me and I'll reply to it, see if I can clear up the confusion. |
| 17:36:15 | stevenknight | 1763: okay |
| 17:36:20 | garyo-home | I have new doc for site_scons which should help anyway. |
| 17:36:38 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:36:57 | stevenknight | 1764: solaris |
| 17:37:12 | stevenknight | and shall we see if maxim can become the solaris guy? |
| 17:37:25 | stevenknight | meant to say: 1764: research |
| 17:37:29 | GregNoel | works for me; will you talk to him? |
| 17:37:36 | stevenknight | ok |
| 17:38:04 | GregNoel | research, stevenknight, hand off to maxim |
| 17:38:27 | stevenknight | done |
| 17:38:51 | stevenknight | 1766: 2.x p3? |
| 17:39:03 | garyo-home | what about 1765 |
| 17:39:10 | garyo-home | future/p1? |
| 17:39:25 | stevenknight | sorry, 1765: |
| 17:39:47 | stevenknight | future p1 stevenknight |
| 17:39:48 | GregNoel | 1765, future, p1 |
| 17:40:14 | * | bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.") |
| 17:40:30 | stevenknight | done |
| 17:40:41 | GregNoel | 1766 |
| 17:40:45 | stevenknight | 1766: 2.x p3? |
| 17:40:50 | garyo-home | 1766: not really a bug, is it? |
| 17:40:59 | stevenknight | it's weird |
| 17:41:16 | garyo-home | stevenknight: sure is, but is it a bug? |
| 17:41:16 | stevenknight | he gives it one .class file as a target and --debug=tree shows him the dependencies of another |
| 17:41:37 | garyo-home | ok, I can see it being confusing. |
| 17:41:48 | GregNoel | They're circularly dependent, so it's doing the right thing there |
| 17:42:07 | stevenknight | i think it's because it's showing the "primary" dependency of the executor that creates all of the [ABC].class files |
| 17:42:08 | GregNoel | but it should also report on B.class and C.class with the same tree |
| 17:42:20 | garyo-home | GregNoel: ideally yes |
| 17:42:23 | stevenknight | right |
| 17:42:43 | garyo-home | anyway, I can't see putting it in 1.x |
| 17:42:55 | stevenknight | 2.x p3, me? |
| 17:42:56 | GregNoel | Make it dependent on batch builders and review when that is fixed. |
| 17:43:09 | garyo-home | ok w/ me |
| 17:43:49 | garyo-home | 1769: 1.x p2? |
| 17:43:55 | GregNoel | do we want to triage 1086 now (batch builders) as 2.x p3? |
| 17:44:31 | garyo-home | GregNoel: batch has to be in 2.x IMHO |
| 17:44:31 | stevenknight | 1086: i see that as 1.x |
| 17:44:56 | GregNoel | a small conflict ... |
| 17:45:06 | garyo-home | stevenknight: is it possible to get into 1.x? If so, go for it! |
| 17:45:14 | stevenknight | i think so |
| 17:45:23 | garyo-home | Huge performance win |
| 17:45:23 | stevenknight | people have been waiting a long time for it |
| 17:45:29 | stevenknight | and it would be a huge performance win |
| 17:45:33 | garyo-home | :-) |
| 17:45:39 | stevenknight | give it to me for 1.x |
| 17:45:48 | stevenknight | and i'll definitely push it out (again) if it's too hairy |
| 17:45:46 | GregNoel | what priority? |
| 17:45:49 | stevenknight | p2 |
| 17:45:53 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:46:21 | * | GregNoel thinks stevenknight is crazy... |
| 17:46:43 | * | stevenknight thinks so, too |
| 17:46:13 | stevenknight | 1769: greg and i said future, gary you suggested 1.x |
| 17:46:45 | garyo-home | Greg wants to do it right, I want to hack it so it works. :-) |
| 17:47:03 | garyo-home | ... but then let Greg do it right later. |
| 17:47:10 | GregNoel | hmmm... |
| 17:47:27 | garyo-home | but whatever you guys think on this one. |
| 17:47:36 | stevenknight | i'm agnostic, so i'm content letting you two fight it out... :-) |
| 17:47:49 | garyo-home | in that case Greg it's up to you. |
| 17:47:49 | GregNoel | Maybe Gary and I should talk about this off-line |
| 17:47:58 | garyo-home | So future it is. |
| 17:48:02 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:48:09 | stevenknight | okay |
| 17:48:35 | stevenknight | 1772: this sounds pretty serious, but beyond 1.0 |
| 17:48:39 | stevenknight | so 1.x p2 (if not p1) |
| 17:48:52 | garyo-home | agreed |
| 17:48:56 | GregNoel | 1.x p2 |
| 17:49:00 | stevenknight | done |
| 17:49:11 | stevenknight | 1831: realized we can probably close this out with reference to Progress() |
| 17:49:21 | garyo-home | yes, I do it now that way. |
| 17:49:22 | stevenknight | which provides a hook for the user to print out the target |
| 17:49:40 | garyo-home | I've even posted my progress func on the list iirc. |
| 17:49:49 | stevenknight | I'll go ahead and close this out real time while we continue |
| 17:49:57 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:50:30 | stevenknight | 1832: moot, David Cournapeau already dup'ed it to 2004 |
| 17:50:49 | garyo-home | good. |
| 17:51:17 | GregNoel | 1833 |
| 17:52:07 | stevenknight | 1833: assign to me (i have some other --debug=explain work already on my plate) |
| 17:52:12 | stevenknight | 1.x |
| 17:52:22 | GregNoel | ok, what priority? |
| 17:52:22 | stevenknight | p4 because it's back-burner for David? |
| 17:52:38 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:53:18 | garyo-home | 1838 seems familiar? |
| 17:53:31 | stevenknight | 1838: think i fixed that when I did Value nodes recently |
| 17:53:41 | stevenknight | i'm inclined to close it on that basis |
| 17:53:42 | garyo-home | ah yes, now I remember. |
| 17:53:57 | stevenknight | but that's without hard evidence that it's the same problem |
| 17:54:12 | garyo-home | Sohail can reopen if it doesn't work on next release. |
| 17:54:24 | GregNoel | ok |
| 17:55:08 | GregNoel | 1842 |
| 17:55:21 | garyo-home | is that Fortran problem or something else? |
| 17:55:23 | stevenknight | okay, I'll close it -- i didn't notice it's Sohail, that makes it all right to close it unilaterally... :-) |
| 17:55:45 | stevenknight | 1842 sounds really weird to me |
| 17:56:09 | garyo-home | Must be Fortran; I say David should look at it. |
| 17:56:22 | garyo-home | 1.x p3 for him |
| 17:56:30 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:56:34 | stevenknight | done |
| 17:56:59 | stevenknight | 1844: 1.x p2, we should do right by 64-bit systems |
| 17:57:08 | stevenknight | i'll be glad to take it |
| 17:57:12 | garyo-home | ok w/ me |
| 17:57:35 | GregNoel | ok, make 20xx a dup? |
| 17:58:04 | garyo-home | ok |
| 17:58:37 | stevenknight | done |
| 17:58:41 | GregNoel | 1862 |
| 17:58:42 | garyo-home | 1862: 1.x p3, consensus? |
| 17:58:46 | stevenknight | yes |
| 17:58:49 | GregNoel | done |
| 17:59:06 | garyo-home | 1869: 2.x p3? |
| 17:59:07 | stevenknight | 1869: i said 1.x but could easily go 2.x |
| 17:59:10 | stevenknight | done |
| 17:59:11 | stevenknight | 2.x p3 |
| 17:59:27 | GregNoel | ok |
| 17:59:38 | stevenknight | 1771: same, i put down 1.x but don't feel strongly about it |
| 18:00:15 | garyo-home | I'm not a Java guy so I'll stay out of 1771, and now I'm about to turn into a pumpkin. I'll leave my window open so I can review the rest of the goodies :-) See you guys later... |
| 17:59:40 | Azverkan | brandon here, fyi re 1844 the entire windows registry is screwy in 64 bit python, not just the visual studio stuff |
| 18:00:26 | Azverkan | it should probably fixed in the upstream registry package somehow |
| 18:00:39 | garyo-home | Azverkan: that is a good idea. |
| 18:00:43 | stevenknight | hi brandon |
| 18:01:00 | Azverkan | at work so I'm just watching |
| 18:01:01 | stevenknight | agree re: some more comprehensive fix in how we deal with the registry |
| 18:01:27 | stevenknight | wrap up all of these in a function that will look in both 32-bit and 64-bit locations |
| 18:01:36 | stevenknight | without having to sprinkle that logic all over the rest of the modules |
| 18:01:36 | GregNoel | (1771 isn't a registry problem, do you mean 1869?) |
| 18:01:50 | Azverkan | 1844 |
| 18:03:31 | GregNoel | ah, way back there... |
| 18:04:36 | stevenknight | okay, back to 1771: |
| 18:04:51 | stevenknight | 2.x p2? |
| 18:05:40 | GregNoel | I'm torn |
| 18:06:32 | GregNoel | It does seem specialized, so 2.x p2 is reasonable. |
| 18:06:50 | stevenknight | okay, let's go with that |
| 18:06:54 | GregNoel | ok |
| 18:07:07 | GregNoel | Next spreadsheet? |
| 18:07:07 | stevenknight | on to 2007q3? |
| 18:08:01 | stevenknight | 1687: INVALID or else a doc issue w.r.t. SideEffect() files not getting cleaned |
| 18:08:16 | stevenknight | i didn't look to see what (if anything) we say about that... |
| 18:08:49 | GregNoel | However, the TeX builders now are using SideEffect to specify optional files; that was in a REVIEW not too long aga |
| 18:08:53 | GregNoel | ago |
| 18:09:08 | stevenknight | um, grep SideEffect Tools/*tex*.py turns up nothing |
| 18:09:16 | stevenknight | the TeX tools are using emitters, not SideEffect |
| 18:09:29 | GregNoel | Well, it's what Rob said he was doing... |
| 18:09:53 | stevenknight | oh, maybe that's in a pending patch -- let me do another quick search |
| 18:10:32 | stevenknight | hmm, still not finding anything like that |
| 18:10:35 | * | GregNoel is doing a search of his own... |
| 18:10:56 | stevenknight | was he saying SideEffect as in the function, or "side effect" as in colloquial expression for "additional files created by TeX" |
| 18:12:50 | GregNoel | Hmmm... Not sure. I read it as "SideEffect" but he could have just been imprecise. |
| 18:13:46 | GregNoel | There's no internal API for side effects; the only entry is SideEffect(), so your search is sufficient |
| 18:14:20 | stevenknight | well, even if TeX starts using it (i could see that for things like logs) i think the right way to handle it would be to also specify Clean() on the SideEffect() files |
| 18:14:21 | GregNoel | I guess that makes it a doc issue. |
| 18:14:32 | stevenknight | okay, 1.0 p3 doc |
| 18:14:53 | GregNoel | ok, I'll write it up that way. |
| 18:15:08 | stevenknight | done |
| 18:15:21 | stevenknight | 1689: 1.x p2, who? |
| 18:16:31 | GregNoel | not me. I'm curious about it, but I think I'm too UNIX-centric |
| 18:16:58 | stevenknight | hmm, i think Gary might be off with the kids, and we're only on our second issue in this spreadsheet |
| 18:17:08 | stevenknight | shall we call it a night? |
| 18:17:16 | GregNoel | I'm willing |
| 18:17:38 | stevenknight | okay, sounds good |
| 18:17:52 | GregNoel | With three sets of relatives in town these past few days, I didn't get much farther than we are now |
| 18:18:05 | stevenknight | not bad, though, we made pretty good progress |
| 18:18:19 | stevenknight | any conflict for you w/next Monday same time (17h00)? |
| 18:18:39 | GregNoel | No, I don't think so; let me check |
| 18:19:22 | GregNoel | Monday the 2nd is good for me |
| 18:19:43 | stevenknight | okay, that'll be the stake in the ground |
| 18:19:58 | GregNoel | OK, I'll publish it |
| 18:20:12 | stevenknight | do you have cycles to update the bugs or shall I handle that translation? |
| 18:20:26 | GregNoel | I'll get some spreadsheets for the next couple of times as well |
| 18:20:38 | GregNoel | No, I can handle it as long as my network is alive |
| 18:20:45 | stevenknight | still flaky? |
| 18:21:07 | GregNoel | Much better, but bandwidth is down |
| 18:21:34 | GregNoel | There were probably some burned wires that haven't been replaced yet |
| 18:21:38 | stevenknight | yow |
| 18:22:01 | stevenknight | all right, i'm off to get back to other things |
| 18:22:11 | stevenknight | many thanks... |
| 18:22:11 | GregNoel | ok, cul |
| 18:22:27 | * | GregNoel has been marked as being away |
| 18:22:34 | * | stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") |
| 18:54:11 | * | garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.14/2008040413]") |
| 21:28:01 | * | Azverkan has quit ("[BX] Time to make the donuts") |
