1 18:53:15 * GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
2 18:58:55 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.131) has joined #scons
3 19:00:04 <GregNoel> Hi, Steven. Gary has said he would likely be late; anybody else here for the bug party?
4 19:00:21 <stevenknight> i don't see Bill, and he's the other stalwart
5 19:00:57 <GregNoel> And only you and I commented in the spreadsheet, and you didn't finish.
6 19:00:59 <stevenknight> i'm just getting into the Current Issues spreadsheet -- I'm taking th late shuttle home tonight
7 19:01:08 <stevenknight> right, just catching up
8 19:01:17 <stevenknight> the existing comments were mine from last week
9 19:02:03 * garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
10 19:02:13 <GregNoel> Gary's not that late, after all
11 19:02:24 <garyo-home> Hi Greg.
12 19:02:44 <garyo-home> Hi, Steven.
13 19:02:55 <GregNoel> Hey, Gary. You said you would be late.
14 19:03:23 <garyo-home> Snuck out just in time, or mostly.
15 19:03:43 <GregNoel> I think Steven is in a different window, updating the current issues spreadsheet; he should be back soon.
16 19:03:36 <stevenknight> hey gary
17 19:03:39 <garyo-home> Hi
18 19:03:43 <stevenknight> how'd your release go last week?
19 19:03:56 <stevenknight> GregNoel's ESP ++
20 19:04:12 <garyo-home> Release went great. I haven't got a lot of time for scons these days due to things at work.
21 19:04:31 <garyo-home> We're growing the company, got new investors, new CEO... lots of new & exciting stuff
22 19:04:39 <garyo-home> but it takes up all my time & then some.
23 19:04:43 <GregNoel> The disadvantage of working for a living...
24 19:04:55 <garyo-home> ...says the retired Unix guru.
25 19:05:03 <GregNoel> {;-}
26 19:05:03 <stevenknight> :-)
27 19:05:27 <garyo-home> So anyway, that's all in apology for the fact that I haven't touched the spreadsheets.
28 19:05:20 <stevenknight> well, shall we make as good use of the time as we can, then?
29 19:05:39 <garyo-home> Yes, let's dive in. Current issues first?
30 19:05:42 <stevenknight> i might disconnect briefly in ~10 minutes, i have to transfer shuttles
31 19:05:45 <stevenknight> yes current issues
32 19:05:47 <GregNoel> 2124
33 19:06:12 <stevenknight> 1.x p3 me
34 19:06:20 <garyo-home> ok w/ me.
35 19:06:23 <GregNoel> I admit a traceback is unfriendly, and something should be done about that, but the problem is that ...
36 19:06:34 <stevenknight> parts of the VS revamp will try to clean up some general windows issues
37 19:06:40 <GregNoel> he's really using a different name for the file.
38 19:07:08 <GregNoel> With that said, 1.x p3 makes as much sense as anything.
39 19:07:23 <stevenknight> okay, let's go with it
40 19:07:27 <GregNoel> done
41 19:07:29 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
42 19:07:36 <GregNoel> Hey, Bill.
43 19:07:39 <garyo-home> 2121 has come up a few times on the list, right?
44 19:07:41 <garyo-home> Hi Bill.
45 19:07:51 <stevenknight> Bill!
46 19:08:29 <GregNoel> Yes, and I think there may be dups, but I couldn't find them.
47 19:08:41 <stevenknight> what is there about the confusing VariantDir feature that *hasn't* come up a few times on the list?
48 19:08:46 <garyo-home> The patch seems reasonable on the face of it.
49 19:09:05 <GregNoel> (patch?)
50 19:09:19 <garyo-home> 212 has a patch and a test.
51 19:09:23 <garyo-home> sorry 2121.
52 19:10:07 <GregNoel> Ah, it looks like that came along after I commented.
53 19:10:09 <garyo-home> Anyway, I agree w/ you guys on 1.x p2.
54 19:10:38 <GregNoel> Yes, 1.x p2 is even stronger with a patch to work from.
55 19:10:50 <stevenknight> yeah, 1.x p2 -- the patch looks good (haven't looked at the test case) and should be rewarded
56 19:10:59 <garyo-home> ok, good.
57 19:11:01 <GregNoel> done
58 19:11:54 <garyo-home> 2122 is a way not to have to use src_builder iiuc?
59 19:12:04 <stevenknight> right, essentially
60 19:12:13 <stevenknight> let you add new src_builders dynamically
61 19:12:13 <GregNoel> I don't know if this is the best API, but I agree that it something should be done.
62 19:12:45 <stevenknight> and with some supported API so everyone doesn't have to cut-and-paste all the obj_builder stuff that's initialized in Tool/__init__.py
63 19:12:43 <GregNoel> I published the long-promised requirements for better messages earlier today; that has a comment about this issue.
64 19:13:10 <stevenknight> sounds good; i'll take a look when we're done
65 19:13:12 <garyo-home> func name is maybe not perfect but yes something like this is good.
66 19:13:50 <stevenknight> any objections to sticking with 1.x p3?
67 19:13:50 <GregNoel> I think better messages and this are indirectly related, so fixing one will have an impact on both
68 19:14:04 <garyo-home> But since it's an enhancement, I'd say low pri for 1.x (p3 max) or else later.
69 19:14:27 <GregNoel> My suggestion is the same as better messages, and I don't remember what that was assigned.
70 19:14:53 <garyo-home> 1458?
71 19:15:08 <garyo-home> um, nope.
72 19:15:09 <stevenknight> greg, what was the thread from earlier today re: better messages?
73 19:15:12 <stevenknight> you have me intrigued now
74 19:15:28 <GregNoel> wiki BetterMessages
75 19:15:35 <stevenknight> okay
76 19:15:36 <stevenknight> 2123:
77 19:15:51 <stevenknight> consensus 1.x p2 ?
78 19:15:58 <GregNoel> fine with me
79 19:16:09 <stevenknight> who?
80 19:16:11 <garyo-home> ok. I can probably do it.
81 19:16:42 <garyo-home> It looks pretty easy.
82 19:16:42 <stevenknight> okay, thanks -- just added your name to the spreadsheet
83 19:16:45 <stevenknight> 2125:
84 19:17:30 <GregNoel> 2122: http://scons.org/wiki/BetterErrorMessages
85 19:17:41 <garyo-home> 2125: if Tools inherited from a base class, they wouldn't have to implement exists().
86 19:18:09 <stevenknight> have to switch buses, might drop momentarily
87 19:18:46 <garyo-home> ... and if they were subclasses it'd be easy to see what's a Tool.
88 19:18:51 <GregNoel> Tools are not classes; they're modules (i.e., imported)
89 19:19:34 <garyo-home> Yeah (though there are other types, but classes aren't among them). I guess we can't really change that.
90 19:20:01 <GregNoel> Not easily; there's also the backward-compatible issue.
91 19:20:22 <garyo-home> A module can inherit stuff, but doing that just to avoid writing 'return True' seems overkill.
92 19:20:52 <garyo-home> I think this bug is making a mountain out of a molehill; should be 2.x low pri if anything.
93 19:21:25 <garyo-home> Greg, what you say in the ssheet is spot on.
94 19:21:42 <GregNoel> I agree; it's overkill. That's why I suggested wontfix.
95 19:21:52 <garyo-home> I agree, wontfix.
96 19:22:13 <GregNoel> If Steven makes it back without dropping, we can have a consensus.
97 19:22:38 * sgk_ (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.135) has joined #scons
98 19:22:46 <garyo-home> .. and here he is now.
99 19:22:50 <sgk_> I'm back -- thought I was still connected but I guess not
100 19:22:54 <GregNoel> We'll probably be changing this interface with the toolchain stuff, but I'd like to leave it until then.
101 19:23:09 <sgk_> still on the exists() thing?
102 19:23:14 <GregNoel> Yes
103 19:23:11 <garyo-home> Greg & I say "wontfix" 2125.
104 19:23:16 <garyo-home> yes, exists().
105 19:23:35 <sgk_> do new-style classes allow it to be treated like gary was suggested (re: subclassing)?
106 19:23:45 <sgk_> old-style classes definitely didn't
107 19:24:04 <garyo-home> don't know
108 19:24:06 <GregNoel> I don't think so...
109 19:24:15 <sgk_> okay, well not terribly important
110 19:24:41 <GregNoel> do we have a consensus?
111 19:24:46 <sgk_> this was from a colleague lobbying me re: all the cut-and-paste "def exists(): return True" at the bottom of all the written modules
112 19:24:58 <sgk_> wontfix is fine with me
113 19:25:10 <garyo-home> you can blame it on us.
114 19:25:22 <GregNoel> yeah, we're hardcore
115 19:25:34 <sgk_> lol
116 19:25:43 <GregNoel> 2126?
117 19:25:44 <sgk_> 2126 then:
118 19:26:11 <sgk_> no real strong feelings so far -- any reason not to leave it 1.x p4?
119 19:26:11 <garyo-home> Having these as functions would be nice, I say 1.x p4
120 19:26:25 <sgk_> done
121 19:26:28 <sgk_> 2127:
122 19:26:40 <GregNoel> Moving to Python 2.2 would allow these to be written as simple names,
123 19:26:51 <GregNoel> but that would require waiting until 2.x
124 19:27:04 <sgk_> ah, that should be at least noted in the issue
125 19:27:12 <GregNoel> OK, wilco
126 19:27:15 <sgk_> i'll add a comment in the background here
127 19:28:18 <sgk_> 2127:
128 19:28:53 <GregNoel> 2127, I'd like to spin this off onto someone who has the background with all the variations.
129 19:29:23 <garyo-home> I do, but even with that it's not clear what the right answer is.
130 19:29:23 <GregNoel> But who? I surely don't.
131 19:29:32 <bdbaddog> Good evening all.
132 19:29:52 <garyo-home> If a user says RPATH=XXX, should we try to provide those semantics by jiggling other linker args?
133 19:29:57 <GregNoel> Hey, Bill...
134 19:30:01 <garyo-home> Hi, Bill.
135 19:30:29 <bdbaddog> Greetings finally back from HI, and then OC. phew.
136 19:30:41 <GregNoel> Somehow, autoconf figures it out, since they support rpath, but ...
137 19:30:44 <sgk_> sounds like there's enough uncertainty that 2127 should either be a research for someone
138 19:30:55 <GregNoel> ... the complexity looks intimidating.
139 19:31:20 <garyo-home> I'll be happy to research it. But at some point scons has to say "this compiler doesn't support RPATH (or not well enough)" and punt.
140 19:31:25 <GregNoel> Your research or my research? They're different.
141 19:31:21 <sgk_> or a 1.x-p3-and-reprioritize if "research" is too much of a backburner
142 19:31:40 <GregNoel> Ah, your research.
143 19:31:45 <sgk_> yours (i.e., should be investigated)
144 19:31:49 <garyo-home> I have a bunch of Macs with different OSes, so I can at least poke them all.
145 19:31:49 <sgk_> heh
146 19:31:58 <sgk_> okay, garyo research
147 19:32:15 <GregNoel> My research takes priority over 1.0, i.e., research it now.
148 19:32:24 <sgk_> i think research should be Greg's interpretation (AIIU, investigate for reprioritization)
149 19:32:31 <sgk_> but in practice that doesn't seem how we're handling it
150 19:32:38 <sgk_> right
151 19:32:51 <GregNoel> but if Gary wants to do it, I'll let him have it.
152 19:33:04 <GregNoel> garyo research
153 19:33:05 <garyo-home> (Hmm, do I have any research items? Not sure...) what I want is 1.x research (i.e. research as a priority)
154 19:33:05 <sgk_> okay, gary, research
155 19:33:30 <sgk_> that's kind of what I've morphed 1.x p3 into, mentally
156 19:33:34 <garyo-home> but I'll get something done on it.
157 19:33:47 <GregNoel> no, research and 1.x are both milestones; can't change the names of the priorities.
158 19:33:51 <sgk_> I figure we're going to have a big reprioritization of 1.x issues at some point
159 19:33:57 <sgk_> to break them down into manageable chunks
160 19:34:04 <sgk_> cause there's just too much there right now
161 19:34:12 <GregNoel> You do have a talent for understatement {;-}
162 19:34:44 <garyo-home> oh well, that just means there may be lots of 1.x's
163 19:34:59 <garyo-home> (or we slip things til 2.0 of course)
164 19:35:16 <GregNoel> Aye, there's the slip, er, rub
165 19:35:21 <garyo-home> anyway, 2128 is next...
166 19:35:29 <sgk_> maybe. we need to discuss releasing 1.0 (I think 0.98.5 has baked enough)
167 19:35:32 <GregNoel> 2128, David
168 19:35:45 <sgk_> and when/how to branch so there's a place for relevant dev work
169 19:35:54 <sgk_> 2128: david
170 19:36:04 <garyo-home> 2128 Includes doc patch, I say 1.0 or 1.0.x.
171 19:36:15 <GregNoel> True, but not quite yet; one issue later may need to be slipped in.
172 19:36:23 <garyo-home> Steven: yes, it's getting to that point.
173 19:36:48 <garyo-home> We can branch it any time and just merge things that need to go in.
174 19:37:00 <GregNoel> You're looking at 2129; no patch for 2128
175 19:37:10 <sgk_> 2128: 1.0 for the doc patch
176 19:37:19 <sgk_> ? i see an attachment to 2128
177 19:37:23 <garyo-home> me too.
178 19:37:39 <garyo-home> a trivial two-liner.
179 19:37:53 <sgk_> 2129 is another david Fortran thing, though
180 19:38:22 <garyo-home> 2129: wow, a patch which is *just* a test.
181 19:38:27 <sgk_> 2129: anyone, anytime (it's an added test)
182 19:38:29 <GregNoel> Yeah, but is it the doc or the implementation?
183 19:38:45 <garyo-home> 2128: doc. 2129: test for implementation.
184 19:39:02 <sgk_> no, greg's suggesting that although 2128 might "fix" the doc,
185 19:39:12 <GregNoel> OK, 2128 1.0 David, 2129 anytime
186 19:39:13 <sgk_> the doc might be right (the *CPP* variables *should* be in the command line)
187 19:39:16 <sgk_> and the code needs fixing
188 19:39:22 <garyo-home> aha, I see.
189 19:39:57 <GregNoel> David either way.
190 19:40:00 <garyo-home> We would need David to answer that.
191 19:40:07 * stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
192 19:40:14 <garyo-home> there goes Steven.
193 19:40:18 <sgk_> right, done 2128: david, 1.0, with a note about the doc-vs.-code
194 19:40:20 <GregNoel> Ah, we just lost Steven...
195 19:40:25 <sgk_> hey , where'd i go?
196 19:40:39 <GregNoel> vanished in to the AEther...
197 19:40:46 <garyo-home> hm, my irc client said your connection timed out.
198 19:40:41 <sgk_> (that was the connection through the other bus timing out)
199 19:41:04 <garyo-home> I see.
200 19:41:17 <sgk_> okay, 2129: anyone, anytime
201 19:41:28 <sgk_> 2130:
202 19:41:50 <garyo-home> 2130, doc license issues: can we satisfy them somehow, maybe a CC license of some kind?
203 19:42:03 <GregNoel> Have you figured out what he really wants?
204 19:42:06 <garyo-home> That would let you still print the UG?
205 19:42:17 <sgk_> CC license would be the right thing, i suppose
206 19:42:30 <sgk_> this is probably a research, me to figure out how where to draw the line
207 19:42:38 <GregNoel> OK, works for me
208 19:42:44 <sgk_> yeah, they want to make the UG available on (e.g.) Debian
209 19:43:01 <sgk_> but it's copyright me, not the SCons Foundation, and it's unclear if they can legallly do it
210 19:43:03 <GregNoel> although getting it into 1.0 would be good
211 19:43:09 <sgk_> i'll sort it out
212 19:43:14 <GregNoel> OK, works for me
213 19:43:20 <garyo-home> ok
214 19:43:28 <sgk_> just changed it to research (Greg's research)
215 19:43:48 <GregNoel> Ah, really?
216 19:44:04 <sgk_> well, i won't promise, but I do conceptually agree with it
217 19:44:26 <garyo-home> ok, 2131 (glob needs to sort)?
218 19:44:28 <GregNoel> I thought I understood the initial request, but not since.
219 19:44:31 <sgk_> in practice, right now i'm prioritizing UG updates over research to get 1.0 out
220 19:44:59 <sgk_> 2131: is there any downside to making Glob() return a deterministic order?
221 19:45:02 <sgk_> i can't think of one
222 19:45:18 <GregNoel> glob.glob doesn't sort; why should Glob?
223 19:45:21 <garyo-home> We should definitely sort it.
224 19:45:31 <sgk_> principle of least surprise
225 19:45:34 <garyo-home> Who would want it in random order?
226 19:45:45 <bdbaddog> and you could use --random if you did...
227 19:45:53 <GregNoel> "least astonishment" yes, you're probably right.
228 19:46:00 <sgk_> having SCons rebuild things whenever it feels like it because you use Glob() seems really unehlpful
229 19:46:23 <garyo-home> right, I think this should be 1.0.x p2. Easy and helpful.
230 19:46:33 <bdbaddog> gotta run. hey can someone look at my comments bug 243. I did some research and seems like a real bug where we thought it was doc bug before.
231 19:46:53 <GregNoel> later
232 19:46:56 <sgk_> okay, we'll try to look at 243
233 19:46:57 <sgk_> later
234 19:47:03 <garyo-home> bye
235 19:47:14 <sgk_> 2131: 1.0.x p2?
236 19:47:36 <GregNoel> ok, I guess
237 19:47:55 <garyo-home> fine w/ me.
238 19:48:12 <GregNoel> 2132
239 19:48:34 <sgk_> 2132: Ralf's fixes tend to be pretty good
240 19:48:40 <sgk_> i haven't lookat the code on this one yet, though
241 19:48:44 <sgk_> looked at
242 19:48:45 <GregNoel> sgk_, I'm pretty sure it was an earlier issue
243 19:48:55 <GregNoel> It uses subprocess
244 19:49:00 <garyo-home> Can we use subprocess.Popen()?
245 19:49:16 <sgk_> should be able to, the compatibility layer has a subprocess module that works under 1.5.2
246 19:49:27 <GregNoel> we hope
247 19:50:01 <GregNoel> If we can't find the dup, I move for 1.0.x
248 19:50:16 <sgk_> agreed
249 19:50:22 <sgk_> 1.0.x... p3?
250 19:50:28 <garyo-home> That early? OK I guess since there's a good patch.
251 19:50:28 <sgk_> or p2?
252 19:50:44 <GregNoel> yes, and if we find the dup, make it the same.
253 19:50:48 <sgk_> ~5 minutes until i leave the bus
254 19:51:04 <GregNoel> and we're not even out of the current issues...
255 19:51:09 <sgk_> i'll volunteer to hunt for the dup
256 19:51:12 <sgk_> so put my name on it
257 19:51:16 <GregNoel> ok, done
258 19:51:24 <sgk_> two weeks' worth
259 19:51:37 <GregNoel> but only five new ones
260 19:51:42 <sgk_> true
261 19:51:47 <garyo-home> 2133: invalid, or should we try to handle AddPostAction differently (no implicit dep on cmd)?
262 19:51:53 <sgk_> 2133: i think this case should work
263 19:52:01 <sgk_> it used to, and it doesn't seem unreasonable
264 19:52:09 <sgk_> ("should be made to work (again)" that is)
265 19:52:33 <garyo-home> AddPostAction cmds don't really need to be dependencies anyway, so I agree.
266 19:52:39 <GregNoel> sounds like a hack...
267 19:52:49 <GregNoel> Hmmm... I think they do
268 19:52:53 <garyo-home> No, because AddPostAction is not a builder.
269 19:53:01 <sgk_> agree w/gary
270 19:53:11 <GregNoel> think of a local command that JFCLs through the binary
271 19:53:12 <sgk_> plus it's easier to add an explicit Depends() if you really want that dependency
272 19:53:18 <garyo-home> Builder cmds should get auto deps, but not Pre/Post actions.
273 19:53:20 <sgk_> than to shut it off
274 19:53:26 <GregNoel> the command should be rebuilt if it changes
275 19:53:52 <sgk_> hmm, Greg i do see your point -- SCM purity would require it
276 19:53:53 <garyo-home> Greg: hm, I have to think about that.
277 19:54:11 <GregNoel> we're not going to settle this now; not enough time; resume here next time?
278 19:54:14 <sgk_> since you can't know the AddPostAction() is irrelevant
279 19:54:22 <sgk_> works for me
280 19:54:36 <GregNoel> OK, then, when next?
281 19:54:38 <garyo-home> ok. Same time, same place, next week?
282 19:54:45 <sgk_> same time, etc.
283 19:54:53 <GregNoel> 19h00? or 17h00?
284 19:55:02 <garyo-home> 1900 is good for me, how about you?
285 19:55:07 <sgk_> 19h00 is fine with me
286 19:55:13 <GregNoel> fine with me
287 19:55:16 <garyo-home> Greg: I'll do the data entry this week from your irc log
288 19:55:17 <sgk_> done
289 19:55:25 <sgk_> gary: thanks
290 19:55:43 <GregNoel> ok, although I have the time this week
291 19:55:50 <sgk_> i'll probably start a release@ thread re: really releasing 1.0
292 19:56:02 <garyo-home> sgk_: I was just going to suggest that.
293 19:56:14 <GregNoel> good idea
294 19:56:28 <garyo-home> Greg: thanks but I think I can handle it, gotta contribute somehow...
295 19:56:49 <garyo-home> plus I'll be on vacation 23rd - 6th
296 19:56:50 <GregNoel> Personally, I'd rather you were editing the spreadsheets...
297 19:57:06 <sgk_> disconnect in < 15 seconds, later
298 19:57:08 <garyo-home> OK, I agree. I'll make some time for that too.
299 19:57:19 <GregNoel> ok, later
300 19:57:24 * sgk_ has quit ("Leaving")
301 19:57:25 <garyo-home> bye guys.
302 19:57:29 <GregNoel> cul
303 19:57:35 * garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906]")
304 19:57:37 * GregNoel has been marked as being away
305
