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 13:05:55 *      Azverkan (n=fakeuser@209.172.105.155) has joined #scons
   2 16:48:00 *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-46e723d28b1b3479) has joined #scons
   3 16:55:25 <stevenknight> GregNoel:  are you here yet?
   4 16:55:53 *      garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   5 16:58:09 <garyo-home>   hi folks
   6 16:58:45 <stevenknight> hi gary
   7 16:58:57 <stevenknight> Greg doesn't seem to be here yet
   8 16:59:55 <garyo-home>   ok, I'm just starting in on the spreadsheet.
   9 16:59:55 <GregNoel>     Hello, am I late?
  10 17:00:01 <garyo-home>   nope, just in time.
  11 17:00:09 <stevenknight> hi Greg
  12 17:00:26 <GregNoel>     We have relatives in town; we were out with them and just got back.
  13 17:00:41 <stevenknight> ah, special thanks for making it, then
  14 17:00:56 <GregNoel>     Give me a sec to get set up
  15 17:00:47 <stevenknight> hope we're not taking you away too much
  16 17:01:06 <GregNoel>     No, we'll see them again tomorrow.
  17 17:02:13 <stevenknight> BTW, on the ReadWrite page, the 2007 Q1 link takes you to the same sheet as the Q4 link
  18 17:02:16 <stevenknight> or takes me there, anyway
  19 17:02:46 <stevenknight> unlikely we'll get that far today, of course, but for next week
  20 17:03:07 <GregNoel>     Yeah, the spreadsheet isn't ready yet.
  21 17:03:02 <garyo-home>   Unfortunately I only have 45 min tonight :-(
  22 17:03:14 <GregNoel>     OK, I'm ready
  23 17:03:22 <stevenknight> okay, 2061
  24 17:03:22 <GregNoel>     Why only 45 min?
  25 17:03:35 <garyo-home>   kid duty
  26 17:03:49 *      stevenknight nods knowingly...
  27 17:04:14 *      GregNoel gets to miss all that fun...
  28 17:04:21 <stevenknight> 2061:  1.x p3?
  29 17:04:24 <garyo-home>   Before we talk about the actual issues, can I ask about 1.x vs. 2.x in general?
  30 17:04:29 <GregNoel>     sure
  31 17:04:29 <stevenknight> sure
  32 17:04:33 <stevenknight> jinx
  33 17:04:33 <GregNoel>     jinx
  34 17:04:42 <garyo-home>   How much should we put into 1.x vs. deferring to 2.x?
  35 17:04:59 <GregNoel>     Depends on how long you expect 1.x to last
  36 17:05:02 <garyo-home>   2061 is easy, for instance.  But so are *lots* of others.
  37 17:05:07 <stevenknight> i think we'll need to rebalance 1.x once we get past 1.0 anyway
  38 17:05:16 <GregNoel>     stevenknight, true
  39 17:05:16 <garyo-home>   Greg: right.  Is there a 2.0 schedule?
  40 17:05:44 <garyo-home>   Are we thinking 2.0 this year for instance?
  41 17:05:46 <GregNoel>     None, other than some people say one month and some say one year.  Probably between the two.
  42 17:06:00 <stevenknight> yeah
  43 17:06:00 <garyo-home>   Greg: OK, that's sort of my thought too.
  44 17:06:13 <stevenknight> my best guess is some time in Q4
  45 17:06:19 <stevenknight> enough time for 1.x to soak
  46 17:06:22 <garyo-home>   OK, then I say 2061 should be 1.x.
  47 17:06:30 <stevenknight> i'm okay with gut feel
  48 17:06:41 <stevenknight> if we'd "like" something in 1.x for any reason, mark it as such
  49 17:06:55 <stevenknight> we'll end up with too much 1.x, but then we just re-prioritize those to make it manageable
  50 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.
  51 17:07:05 *      stevenknight agrees w/GregNoel
  52 17:07:15 <stevenknight> so 2061:  1.x p3
  53 17:07:43 <garyo-home>   stevenknight: ok
  54 17:07:48 <GregNoel>     Isn't 2061 the one that's just been on the mailing list?
  55 17:07:54 <stevenknight> 2062:  moot, I went ahead and checked in my fix about half an hour ago...  :-)
  56 17:08:06 <garyo-home>   2062: good
  57 17:08:19 <stevenknight> also already RESOLVED the issue
  58 17:08:26 <garyo-home>   2064 is also easy, so by same logic should be 1.x
  59 17:08:30 <stevenknight> 2064:  consensus 1.x p3
  60 17:08:31 <stevenknight> right
  61 17:08:46 <GregNoel>     ok
  62 17:08:51 <garyo-home>   2064 ok
  63 17:08:53 <stevenknight> 2065:  consensus 1.x p4, Rob Managan
  64 17:09:40 <garyo-home>   2066: VS8 is the current version, we should support it well if we can
  65 17:09:45 <garyo-home>   (though I don't use it yet)
  66 17:09:55 <stevenknight> 2066:  i'm conflicted
  67 17:10:09 <stevenknight> the fix looks like a no-brainer, but...
  68 17:10:11 <garyo-home>   Then let's do it in 1.x early on
  69 17:10:24 <garyo-home>   like 1.x p1?
  70 17:10:35 <stevenknight> yes, 1.x p1
  71 17:10:39 <GregNoel>     done
  72 17:10:47 <GregNoel>     next is consensus
  73 17:10:53 <garyo-home>   yes.
  74 17:10:55 <stevenknight> 2067:  consensus dup
  75 17:11:01 <garyo-home>   I'll take 2068, good idea.
  76 17:11:11 <stevenknight> 2068:  cool, thanks
  77 17:11:16 <garyo-home>   I'll take up details on the list.
  78 17:11:27 <stevenknight> i'd like p2 (since I need it too  :-))
  79 17:11:45 <garyo-home>   OK, fine w/ me.
  80 17:11:55 <stevenknight> excellent, we're cruising
  81 17:12:02 <GregNoel>     done with the "current" spreadsheet, then; move on to the next?
  82 17:12:03 <stevenknight> on to 2007 q4?
  83 17:12:47 <stevenknight> 1740:  consensus research, David
  84 17:12:51 <GregNoel>     done
  85 17:13:15 <stevenknight> 1741:  1.x p3, stevenknight
  86 17:13:27 <garyo-home>   ok w/ me
  87 17:13:28 <GregNoel>     ok
  88 17:14:05 <garyo-home>   1742 is a subprocess issue or something?
  89 17:14:36 <GregNoel>     I saw it as an issue with assuming that setting CC forced the C compiler selection
  90 17:14:48 <stevenknight> 1742:  i'm concerned it's a real problem that happens to be triggered by his weird stripped down CC = ''
  91 17:14:59 <stevenknight> hmm, let me look at it again w/that in mind -- hang on...
  92 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
  93 17:15:54 <garyo-home>   (or other way around, sorry)
  94 17:16:03 <stevenknight> but if it that code were that blatantly wrong, a lot of stuff would fail, not just this edge case
  95 17:16:20 <garyo-home>   stevenknight: yeah, I take it back -- it's OK as written
  96 17:16:30 <stevenknight> i think the real problem here is that this compilation setting definitely shouldn't succeed
  97 17:16:42 <stevenknight> but we pass back a return value that suggests the test passed
  98 17:16:56 <GregNoel>     No, setting CC is ignored, so TryXXX will succeed.
  99 17:17:14 <GregNoel>     He's expecting that setting CC will _disable_ the C compiler
 100 17:17:30 <garyo-home>   anyway, research is needed.
 101 17:17:58 <GregNoel>     I'll take it.
 102 17:18:01 <garyo-home>   But has to be fixed by 1.x one way or another, so that's my vote.
 103 17:18:12 <stevenknight> okay, i can go with 1.x
 104 17:18:16 <GregNoel>     done
 105 17:18:39 <garyo-home>   1745, VS junk
 106 17:18:54 <stevenknight> 1745:  basically, i'm going to take everything VS-related as research
 107 17:19:04 <garyo-home>   OK w/ me, this is super low pri.
 108 17:19:24 <GregNoel>     ok, stevenknight, research
 109 17:19:39 <stevenknight> yeah, i'm just going to revamp VS support pretty heavily
 110 17:19:44 <garyo-home>   1746: untangle threaded output
 111 17:19:55 <garyo-home>   This is really hard, and error-prone.
 112 17:20:15 <GregNoel>     It's a dup; mark it and triage that one.
 113 17:20:21 <stevenknight> i'm okay with dup
 114 17:20:21 <garyo-home>   2.x p3?
 115 17:20:28 <stevenknight> 2.x p3
 116 17:20:29 <garyo-home>   (ok, dup)
 117 17:20:37 *      bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
 118 17:20:38 <stevenknight> on 1183 is fine
 119 17:20:44 <stevenknight> hey bill
 120 17:20:48 <GregNoel>     hi, bill
 121 17:20:50 <stevenknight> we're on th 2007 q4 spreadsheet
 122 17:20:52 <bdbaddog>     Hi.
 123 17:20:57 <stevenknight> #1746, line 51
 124 17:21:00 <garyo-home>   Hi, Bill.
 125 17:21:02 <bdbaddog>     oh yeah. forgot there's a bug party.
 126 17:21:22 <bdbaddog>     I've gotta hit the road in like 10 minutes. So I'll be of no help today. sorry.
 127 17:21:22 <stevenknight> no problem, you're obviously welcome if you have cycles
 128 17:21:34 <stevenknight> that's cool
 129 17:21:34 <GregNoel>     2.x p3 on 1183; agreed.
 130 17:21:40 <stevenknight> done
 131 17:22:08 <stevenknight> 1747:  documentation, 1.0 p5 (like a lot of other doc issues)
 132 17:22:17 <GregNoel>     ok, done
 133 17:22:24 <garyo-home>   I seem to have a few doc things; assign it to me.
 134 17:22:47 <stevenknight> 1748:  1.x p2 -- our code looks like it handles this right
 135 17:22:56 <stevenknight> i really suspect this is in custom code for this project
 136 17:23:15 <garyo-home>   Push back, ask for testcase?
 137 17:23:24 <stevenknight> hmm, not a bad idea
 138 17:23:41 <stevenknight> oh, wait, unfortunately i think this is one where the *user* of a project submitted something to us
 139 17:23:54 <stevenknight> that does suggest pushing it back, having him contact the original project
 140 17:24:17 <stevenknight> i'll go ahead and answer the bug to that effect
 141 17:24:26 <GregNoel>     how about me, research, and I'll untangle it.
 142 17:24:32 <GregNoel>     I can try a test case.
 143 17:24:55 <stevenknight> if you want, sure, go ahead
 144 17:25:21 <GregNoel>     done; next?
 145 17:25:22 <stevenknight> 1.x, p2, greg -- done
 146 17:25:40 <stevenknight> 1751:  1.x p3, me
 147 17:25:49 <stevenknight> i think it's related to the other above, and #2015
 148 17:25:50 <GregNoel>     done
 149 17:25:50 <garyo-home>   agreed
 150 17:26:12 <stevenknight> 1753:  visual studio:  research, stevenknight
 151 17:26:15 <garyo-home>   1753: dup?
 152 17:26:27 <stevenknight> maybe, just assign it to me and i'll take care of it if so
 153 17:26:34 <GregNoel>     done
 154 17:26:55 <stevenknight> 1754:  i think i put my comment on the wrong item, i think i intended that for 1753
 155 17:27:26 <garyo-home>   1754 looks right to me.
 156 17:27:29 <garyo-home>   not a bug.
 157 17:28:03 <GregNoel>     not a bug, a feature request.
 158 17:28:18 <stevenknight> right, maybe for a --clobber that will remove .sconsign*
 159 17:28:21 <stevenknight> or some such
 160 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.)
 161 17:28:29 <stevenknight> good idea
 162 17:28:39 <garyo-home>   stevenknight: ok w/ that I guess
 163 17:28:52 <GregNoel>     scons -ccc
 164 17:28:58 <garyo-home>   :-/
 165 17:29:06 <stevenknight> sure, i could go with that
 166 17:29:15 <stevenknight> either way, FEATURE...
 167 17:29:16 <stevenknight> 2.x?
 168 17:29:20 <garyo-home>   2.x
 169 17:29:24 <stevenknight> p3
 170 17:29:25 <GregNoel>     We discussed this once before
 171 17:29:34 <GregNoel>     ok, 2.x p3
 172 17:29:44 <stevenknight> probably, they all start to blur after a while...  :-)
 173 17:30:05 <stevenknight> 1755:  1.x p4, Greg
 174 17:30:14 <GregNoel>     1755, consensus
 175 17:30:30 <garyo-home>   ok
 176 17:30:34 <stevenknight> 1760:  research, Rob
 177 17:30:38 <GregNoel>     yes
 178 17:30:56 <garyo-home>   ok
 179 17:30:56 <stevenknight> 1761:  gary, you okay with 1.x p3?
 180 17:31:01 <stevenknight> and still on your plate
 181 17:31:15 <garyo-home>   ok, I'll try to do it.
 182 17:31:19 <garyo-home>   It would be cool.
 183 17:31:28 <stevenknight> yes
 184 17:31:27 <GregNoel>     done
 185 17:32:02 <GregNoel>     484 (actually 1762)
 186 17:32:09 <garyo-home>   1762: general problem with ancient OSes (IRIX tar is even worse)
 187 17:32:18 <stevenknight> 1762:  1.x p4, Greg, dup to 484 as you see fit
 188 17:32:38 <GregNoel>     Tar will be replaced by tarfile as soon as 1.5.2 is obsolete
 189 17:32:43 <GregNoel>     I already have it working
 190 17:32:47 <garyo-home>   yay
 191 17:33:08 <stevenknight> i thought tarfile didn't show up until like Python 2.4
 192 17:33:22 <GregNoel>     I have backported it to 2.2
 193 17:33:38 <stevenknight> GregNoel++
 194 17:33:59 <stevenknight> and i was wrong anyway, it's 2.3
 195 17:34:01 <stevenknight> cool
 196 17:34:06 <GregNoel>     but I couldn't backport it to 1.5.2; too many @staticfoo annotations
 197 17:34:14 <stevenknight> makes sense
 198 17:34:27 <stevenknight> so this definitely 2.x, but high priority
 199 17:34:35 <GregNoel>     agreed
 200 17:34:26 <garyo-home>   1763: I think is user error.
 201 17:34:35 <garyo-home>   He wants this to work:
 202 17:34:42 <garyo-home>     cplusplus = __import__('g++', globals(), locals(), [])
 203 17:34:51 <garyo-home>   (sorry I'm getting ahead)
 204 17:34:56 <stevenknight> 162:  2.x p2, or even p1, your call
 205 17:34:59 <stevenknight> 1762 that is
 206 17:35:21 <stevenknight> 1763:  oh, did i misread it?
 207 17:35:31 <stevenknight> I thought he was complaining about the Tool() call within the .generate() function
 208 17:35:44 <garyo-home>   Seems like he thinks tools should appear in sys.path.
 209 17:35:48 <GregNoel>     1763, agreed
 210 17:36:06 <garyo-home>   Give 1763 to me and I'll reply to it, see if I can clear up the confusion.
 211 17:36:15 <stevenknight> 1763:  okay
 212 17:36:20 <garyo-home>   I have new doc for site_scons which should help anyway.
 213 17:36:38 <GregNoel>     done
 214 17:36:57 <stevenknight> 1764:  solaris
 215 17:37:12 <stevenknight> and shall we see if maxim can become the solaris guy?
 216 17:37:25 <stevenknight> meant to say:  1764:  research
 217 17:37:29 <GregNoel>     works for me; will you talk to him?
 218 17:37:36 <stevenknight> ok
 219 17:38:04 <GregNoel>     research, stevenknight, hand off to maxim
 220 17:38:27 <stevenknight> done
 221 17:38:51 <stevenknight> 1766:  2.x p3?
 222 17:39:03 <garyo-home>   what about 1765
 223 17:39:10 <garyo-home>   future/p1?
 224 17:39:25 <stevenknight> sorry, 1765:
 225 17:39:47 <stevenknight> future p1 stevenknight
 226 17:39:48 <GregNoel>     1765, future, p1
 227 17:40:14 *      bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.")
 228 17:40:30 <stevenknight> done
 229 17:40:41 <GregNoel>     1766
 230 17:40:45 <stevenknight> 1766:  2.x p3?
 231 17:40:50 <garyo-home>   1766: not really a bug, is it?
 232 17:40:59 <stevenknight> it's weird
 233 17:41:16 <garyo-home>   stevenknight: sure is, but is it a bug?
 234 17:41:16 <stevenknight> he gives it one .class file as a target and --debug=tree shows him the dependencies of another
 235 17:41:37 <garyo-home>   ok, I can see it being confusing.
 236 17:41:48 <GregNoel>     They're circularly dependent, so it's doing the right thing there
 237 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
 238 17:42:08 <GregNoel>     but it should also report on B.class and C.class with the same tree
 239 17:42:20 <garyo-home>   GregNoel: ideally yes
 240 17:42:23 <stevenknight> right
 241 17:42:43 <garyo-home>   anyway, I can't see putting it in 1.x
 242 17:42:55 <stevenknight> 2.x p3, me?
 243 17:42:56 <GregNoel>     Make it dependent on batch builders and review when that is fixed.
 244 17:43:09 <garyo-home>   ok w/ me
 245 17:43:49 <garyo-home>   1769: 1.x p2?
 246 17:43:55 <GregNoel>     do we want to triage 1086 now (batch builders) as 2.x p3?
 247 17:44:31 <garyo-home>   GregNoel: batch has to be in 2.x IMHO
 248 17:44:31 <stevenknight> 1086:  i see that as 1.x
 249 17:44:56 <GregNoel>     a small conflict ...
 250 17:45:06 <garyo-home>   stevenknight: is it possible to get into 1.x?  If so, go for it!
 251 17:45:14 <stevenknight> i think so
 252 17:45:23 <garyo-home>   Huge performance win
 253 17:45:23 <stevenknight> people have been waiting a long time for it
 254 17:45:29 <stevenknight> and it would be a huge performance win
 255 17:45:33 <garyo-home>   :-)
 256 17:45:39 <stevenknight> give it to me for 1.x
 257 17:45:48 <stevenknight> and i'll definitely push it out (again) if it's too hairy
 258 17:45:46 <GregNoel>     what priority?
 259 17:45:49 <stevenknight> p2
 260 17:45:53 <GregNoel>     done
 261 17:46:21 *      GregNoel thinks stevenknight is crazy...
 262 17:46:43 *      stevenknight thinks so, too
 263 17:46:13 <stevenknight> 1769:  greg and i said future, gary you suggested 1.x
 264 17:46:45 <garyo-home>   Greg wants to do it right, I want to hack it so it works. :-)
 265 17:47:03 <garyo-home>   ... but then let Greg do it right later.
 266 17:47:10 <GregNoel>     hmmm...
 267 17:47:27 <garyo-home>   but whatever you guys think on this one.
 268 17:47:36 <stevenknight> i'm agnostic, so i'm content letting you two fight it out...  :-)
 269 17:47:49 <garyo-home>   in that case Greg it's up to you.
 270 17:47:49 <GregNoel>     Maybe Gary and I should talk about this off-line
 271 17:47:58 <garyo-home>   So future it is.
 272 17:48:02 <GregNoel>     done
 273 17:48:09 <stevenknight> okay
 274 17:48:35 <stevenknight> 1772:  this sounds pretty serious, but beyond 1.0
 275 17:48:39 <stevenknight> so 1.x p2 (if not p1)
 276 17:48:52 <garyo-home>   agreed
 277 17:48:56 <GregNoel>     1.x p2
 278 17:49:00 <stevenknight> done
 279 17:49:11 <stevenknight> 1831:  realized we can probably close this out with reference to Progress()
 280 17:49:21 <garyo-home>   yes, I do it now that way.
 281 17:49:22 <stevenknight> which provides a hook for the user to print out the target
 282 17:49:40 <garyo-home>   I've even posted my progress func on the list iirc.
 283 17:49:49 <stevenknight> I'll go ahead and close this out real time while we continue
 284 17:49:57 <GregNoel>     done
 285 17:50:30 <stevenknight> 1832:  moot, David Cournapeau already dup'ed it to 2004
 286 17:50:49 <garyo-home>   good.
 287 17:51:17 <GregNoel>     1833
 288 17:52:07 <stevenknight> 1833:  assign to me (i have some other --debug=explain work already on my plate)
 289 17:52:12 <stevenknight> 1.x
 290 17:52:22 <GregNoel>     ok, what priority?
 291 17:52:22 <stevenknight> p4 because it's back-burner for David?
 292 17:52:38 <GregNoel>     done
 293 17:53:18 <garyo-home>   1838 seems familiar?
 294 17:53:31 <stevenknight> 1838:  think i fixed that when I did Value nodes recently
 295 17:53:41 <stevenknight> i'm inclined to close it on that basis
 296 17:53:42 <garyo-home>   ah yes, now I remember.
 297 17:53:57 <stevenknight> but that's without hard evidence that it's the same problem
 298 17:54:12 <garyo-home>   Sohail can reopen if it doesn't work on next release.
 299 17:54:24 <GregNoel>     ok
 300 17:55:08 <GregNoel>     1842
 301 17:55:21 <garyo-home>   is that Fortran problem or something else?
 302 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... :-)
 303 17:55:45 <stevenknight> 1842 sounds really weird to me
 304 17:56:09 <garyo-home>   Must be Fortran; I say David should look at it.
 305 17:56:22 <garyo-home>   1.x p3 for him
 306 17:56:30 <GregNoel>     done
 307 17:56:34 <stevenknight> done
 308 17:56:59 <stevenknight> 1844:  1.x p2, we should do right by 64-bit systems
 309 17:57:08 <stevenknight> i'll be glad to take it
 310 17:57:12 <garyo-home>   ok w/ me
 311 17:57:35 <GregNoel>     ok, make 20xx a dup?
 312 17:58:04 <garyo-home>   ok
 313 17:58:37 <stevenknight> done
 314 17:58:41 <GregNoel>     1862
 315 17:58:42 <garyo-home>   1862: 1.x p3, consensus?
 316 17:58:46 <stevenknight> yes
 317 17:58:49 <GregNoel>     done
 318 17:59:06 <garyo-home>   1869: 2.x p3?
 319 17:59:07 <stevenknight> 1869:  i said 1.x but could easily go 2.x
 320 17:59:10 <stevenknight> done
 321 17:59:11 <stevenknight> 2.x p3
 322 17:59:27 <GregNoel>     ok
 323 17:59:38 <stevenknight> 1771:  same, i put down 1.x but don't feel strongly about it
 324 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...
 325 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
 326 18:00:26 <Azverkan>     it should probably fixed in the upstream registry package somehow
 327 18:00:39 <garyo-home>   Azverkan: that is a good idea.
 328 18:00:43 <stevenknight> hi brandon
 329 18:01:00 <Azverkan>     at work so I'm just watching
 330 18:01:01 <stevenknight> agree re: some more comprehensive fix in how we deal with the registry
 331 18:01:27 <stevenknight> wrap up all of these in a function that will look in both 32-bit and 64-bit locations
 332 18:01:36 <stevenknight> without having to sprinkle that logic all over the rest of the modules
 333 18:01:36 <GregNoel>     (1771 isn't a registry problem, do you mean 1869?)
 334 18:01:50 <Azverkan>     1844
 335 18:03:31 <GregNoel>     ah, way back there...
 336 18:04:36 <stevenknight> okay, back to 1771:
 337 18:04:51 <stevenknight> 2.x p2?
 338 18:05:40 <GregNoel>     I'm torn
 339 18:06:32 <GregNoel>     It does seem specialized, so 2.x p2 is reasonable.
 340 18:06:50 <stevenknight> okay, let's go with that
 341 18:06:54 <GregNoel>     ok
 342 18:07:07 <GregNoel>     Next spreadsheet?
 343 18:07:07 <stevenknight> on to 2007q3?
 344 18:08:01 <stevenknight> 1687:  INVALID or else a doc issue w.r.t. SideEffect() files not getting cleaned
 345 18:08:16 <stevenknight> i didn't look to see what (if anything) we say about that...
 346 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
 347 18:08:53 <GregNoel>     ago
 348 18:09:08 <stevenknight> um, grep SideEffect Tools/*tex*.py turns up nothing
 349 18:09:16 <stevenknight> the TeX tools are using emitters, not SideEffect
 350 18:09:29 <GregNoel>     Well, it's what Rob said he was doing...
 351 18:09:53 <stevenknight> oh, maybe that's in a pending patch -- let me do another quick search
 352 18:10:32 <stevenknight> hmm, still not finding anything like that
 353 18:10:35 *      GregNoel is doing a search of his own...
 354 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"
 355 18:12:50 <GregNoel>     Hmmm...  Not sure.  I read it as "SideEffect" but he could have just been imprecise.
 356 18:13:46 <GregNoel>     There's no internal API for side effects; the only entry is SideEffect(), so your search is sufficient
 357 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
 358 18:14:21 <GregNoel>     I guess that makes it a doc issue.
 359 18:14:32 <stevenknight> okay, 1.0 p3 doc
 360 18:14:53 <GregNoel>     ok, I'll write it up that way.
 361 18:15:08 <stevenknight> done
 362 18:15:21 <stevenknight> 1689:  1.x p2, who?
 363 18:16:31 <GregNoel>     not me.  I'm curious about it, but I think I'm too UNIX-centric
 364 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
 365 18:17:08 <stevenknight> shall we call it a night?
 366 18:17:16 <GregNoel>     I'm willing
 367 18:17:38 <stevenknight> okay, sounds good
 368 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
 369 18:18:05 <stevenknight> not bad, though, we made pretty good progress
 370 18:18:19 <stevenknight> any conflict for you w/next Monday same time (17h00)?
 371 18:18:39 <GregNoel>     No, I don't think so; let me check
 372 18:19:22 <GregNoel>     Monday the 2nd is good for me
 373 18:19:43 <stevenknight> okay, that'll be the stake in the ground
 374 18:19:58 <GregNoel>     OK, I'll publish it
 375 18:20:12 <stevenknight> do you have cycles to update the bugs or shall I handle that translation?
 376 18:20:26 <GregNoel>     I'll get some spreadsheets for the next couple of times as well
 377 18:20:38 <GregNoel>     No, I can handle it as long as my network is alive
 378 18:20:45 <stevenknight> still flaky?
 379 18:21:07 <GregNoel>     Much better, but bandwidth is down
 380 18:21:34 <GregNoel>     There were probably some burned wires that haven't been replaced yet
 381 18:21:38 <stevenknight> yow
 382 18:22:01 <stevenknight> all right, i'm off to get back to other things
 383 18:22:11 <stevenknight> many thanks...
 384 18:22:11 <GregNoel>     ok, cul
 385 18:22:27 *      GregNoel has been marked as being away
 386 18:22:34 *      stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
 387 18:54:11 *      garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.14/2008040413]")
 388 21:28:01 *      Azverkan has quit ("[BX] Time to make the donuts")
 389 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-05-27 (last edited 2008-05-28 10:18:04 by ip68-7-77-81)