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
