Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   1 14:02:46 *	bdbaddog ( has joined #scons
   2 17:52:09 *	garyo-home ( has joined #scons
   3 18:34:05 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-9260060d231f4d90) has joined #scons
   4 18:51:25 <garyo-home>	Hi, Steven.
   5 18:52:01 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
   6 18:58:29 <stevenknight>	hey gary
   7 19:00:47 <garyo-home>	Just you & me so far...
   8 19:01:19 <GregNoel>	No, I'm here
   9 19:01:30 <garyo-home>	Ah, hi Greg!
  10 19:01:32 <GregNoel>	just getting a soda
  11 19:01:50 <stevenknight>	hey
  12 19:02:18 <GregNoel>	Anybody else here for the bug party?
  13 19:02:11 <garyo-home>	Hope everybody's had a good holiday.
  14 19:02:39 <GregNoel>	More than a holiday for us; _three_ birthdays to celebrate...
  15 19:02:45 <stevenknight>	?
  16 19:02:48 <garyo-home>	Wow!
  17 19:02:50 <stevenknight>	wow
  18 19:03:05 <GregNoel>	not to mention baby-sitting
  19 19:03:01 <garyo-home>	kids or grownups?
  20 19:03:41 <GregNoel>	the birthdays are grownups, well, sorta, our niece is a "kid" despite the fact that she has two kids of her own
  21 19:04:05 <garyo-home>	Sounds like a big party.
  22 19:04:26 <GregNoel>	multiple rounds of parties; I've been stuffed this weekend
  23 19:04:44 <GregNoel>	and I can't wait for Tuesday so I can get some rest...
  24 19:04:49 <garyo-home>	:-)
  25 19:04:42 <garyo-home>	I took my son sailing for the first time (he's 9).  First time with him actually crewing at least.
  26 19:05:01 <GregNoel>	You sail?
  27 19:05:09 <garyo-home>	Just a little -- small boats.
  28 19:05:24 <stevenknight>	very cool
  29 19:05:27 <garyo-home>	Would like to do more, but have neither time nor money.
  30 19:05:28 <stevenknight>	i love those growing-up milestones
  31 19:05:32 <GregNoel>	I used to sail Sabots and others of that class, but it's been a while
  32 19:05:42 <garyo-home>	Carl (my son) was pretty excited.
  33 19:05:53 <GregNoel>	It's a lot of fun...
  34 19:06:36 <garyo-home>	We sail at MIT, a boat called a Tech Dinghy.  12.5', cat rigged.  A little bigger than a Sabot maybe?
  35 19:07:24 <GregNoel>	Yes, a Sabot is about two meters
  36 19:07:08 <GregNoel>	Polly (wife) and I rented a boat in the Bay of Islands (New Zealand) a few years ago and sailed for a day, 32', biggest boat I've ever sailed by myself
  37 19:07:41 <garyo-home>	I bet that was a wonderful time.  I'd love to sail something like that down the east coast of the US.
  38 19:07:53 <GregNoel>	Maybe someday....
  39 19:08:03 <garyo-home>	Saving for retirement...
  40 19:08:20 <GregNoel>	Retirements turn out to be for the great-nephews....
  41 19:08:32 <garyo-home>	Hmm, yes I can see how that could work.
  42 19:08:20 <garyo-home>	OK, shall we get started?
  43 19:08:23 <GregNoel>	yes
  44 19:08:53 <garyo-home>	So we're starting with the current issues, right?  131 first?
  45 19:08:58 <garyo-home>	Sorry I mean 2131
  46 19:09:21 <GregNoel>	yes.  I'll go along with sorting it; Steven makes a good point.
  47 19:09:17 <garyo-home>	I'm happy to do it since I want it to sort.
  48 19:09:32 <GregNoel>	works for me
  49 19:09:45 <stevenknight>	okay, 2131 1.1
  50 19:09:55 <GregNoel>	pri?
  51 19:10:05 <stevenknight>	p2 or p3 ?
  52 19:10:12 <garyo-home>	p2 ok?
  53 19:10:23 <GregNoel>	It ought to be simple; p2 to get it done
  54 19:10:33 <stevenknight>	2131 1.1 p2
  55 19:10:33 <stevenknight>	done
  56 19:10:33 <garyo-home>	agreed
  57 19:10:38 <GregNoel>	done
  58 19:10:56 <stevenknight>	1307:  consensus patch, 1.1, Ludwig
  59 19:11:05 <GregNoel>	1307 consensus
  60 19:10:59 <stevenknight>	p...3?
  61 19:11:13 <GregNoel>	Hmmm... p2
  62 19:11:28 <stevenknight>	okay p2
  63 19:11:34 <stevenknight>	done
  64 19:11:46 <GregNoel>	I was hoping he'd try to sneak it in 1.0.1 so we could say it was something we missed...
  65 19:11:47 <garyo-home>	I don't care p2 or p3... I'll say p3 to let other things bubble up more.
  66 19:12:19 <GregNoel>	either works, he has relatively little to do
  67 19:12:36 <stevenknight>	1.0.1 has left the station as far as i'm concerned
  68 19:12:56 <GregNoel>	well, the comment was for last week, which didn't happen...
  69 19:12:59 <stevenknight>	(i'm getting into this move-the-release-along mindset... :-))
  70 19:13:10 <GregNoel>	that's a _good_ thing!
  71 19:13:25 <stevenknight>	exactly
  72 19:13:29 <stevenknight>	so... on to 1973:
  73 19:13:59 <GregNoel>	Gary, the src_dir in your comment is redundant.
  74 19:14:02 <stevenknight>	Greg, I see your point about the semantics being not well thought out
  75 19:14:16 <stevenknight>	but there's a legitimate use case that it does solve
  76 19:14:23 <garyo-home>	Greg: thought it might be.  But the doc disagrees if I remember rightly (says it'll use the parent's dir)
  77 19:14:39 <GregNoel>	I was wrong when I wrote it, hadn't checked; the new manpage patch fixes that
  78 19:15:20 <garyo-home>	Steven: agree we shouldn't remove the functionality.  In the med-long term, should fix it if possible.
  79 19:15:24 <GregNoel>	stevenknight, what use case?
  80 19:15:35 <GregNoel>	I couldn't find one.
  81 19:15:54 <stevenknight>	you can't put a SConscript file in a directory because you don't own it
  82 19:16:03 <stevenknight>	e.g. it's pulled from a repository into which you can't drop files
  83 19:16:11 <stevenknight>	but you still need to build that module for inclusion in your software
  84 19:16:30 <stevenknight>	the *idea* is that you should be able to set src_dir to point to that directory
  85 19:16:31 <garyo-home>	Oho, that is very interesting!  I have a couple of those myself!
  86 19:16:43 <stevenknight>	and the build happens *as if* the SConscript file lived in the src_dir
  87 19:16:44 <GregNoel>	Use a parallel tree in front of the repository; I do that all the time
  88 19:17:05 <garyo-home>	Greg: example?
  89 19:18:20 <GregNoel>	Uh, too long to show here, but not hard.  Create a parallel tree and use Repository twice, once to point to the overrides and once to point to the actual files
  90 19:19:11 <garyo-home>	I see.  May have to try that idea out.  I'm tired of putting SConscripts in 3rd party code I use.
  91 19:19:12 <GregNoel>	stevenknight, I'm thinking about your case, and I'm not sure it works as you expect
  92 19:19:35 <stevenknight>	agreed, it probably doesn't in all cases
  93 19:19:45 <GregNoel>	garyo-home, yes, that's how I SConfiscate third-party stuff I want to use
  94 19:19:46 <stevenknight>	it does for the use cases in the tests of src_dir, though
  95 19:20:06 <garyo-home>	Greg: if src_dir worked as steven suggested, it would be pretty nice though.  But that's another ticket.
  96 19:20:12 <GregNoel>	I'll have to try xxxx ah, doorbell, hang on
  97 19:20:24 <stevenknight>	i also agree that generalizing this by using a flavor of Repository would probably end up much simpler
  98 19:20:48 <stevenknight>	garyo:  any chance you could let Google fly you out here for the GSoC mentor summit?
  99 19:20:53 <stevenknight>	i know you're really busy...
 100 19:21:01 <garyo-home>	So the current ticket: (a) do nothing, (b) doc changes per Greg's work, or (c) try to make it better now?
 101 19:21:17 <stevenknight>	1973:  i say do nothing for now
 102 19:21:32 <stevenknight>	let src_dir die when VariantDir() dies
 103 19:21:42 <garyo-home>	What I'd really like is for Greg to write up what he tried and what does and doesn't work (with tests)
 104 19:21:49 <stevenknight>	yes
 105 19:22:45 <garyo-home>	At least that could go in the wiki or better yet in the bug list and when people whine on the mailing list we could point them there.
 106 19:24:20 <GregNoel>	I'm back; give me a chance to catch up
 107 19:24:27 <stevenknight>	okay
 108 19:25:47 <garyo-home>	Steven: I missed you offer of coming to the mentor summit.  I'd love to, but way too much going on unless I can combine it with a work meeting.  When is it?
 109 19:26:11 <stevenknight>	eh, now i have to go check... :-)
 110 19:26:17 <GregNoel>	I think my test cases died in our power failure, but I can try to recreate them
 111 19:26:49 <GregNoel>	The summit is 25 October for the weekend
 112 19:27:05 <garyo-home>	Greg: too bad!  I think it's worth it, unless src_dir is just going to die anyway (in favor of Repository or whatever)
 113 19:27:13 <GregNoel>	We're planning to drive up, wrap a little holiday around it
 114 19:27:35 <garyo-home>	Steven: 25 Oct, I'll check and see.  May not know for a little while yet.  I'll go back & read all those msgs I deleted :-)
 115 19:28:10 <stevenknight>	no problem
 116 19:28:32 <GregNoel>	Assuming we're invited, of course...
 117 19:28:30 <stevenknight>	greg, you okay with letting src_dir be until we can replace VariantDir() with a generalized Repository interface?
 118 19:29:22 <GregNoel>	Works for me; after you spent all that time convincing me they were different, I'd like to see what you come up with
 119 19:29:44 <garyo-home>	:-)
 120 19:30:10 <stevenknight>	fair point
 121 19:30:13 <GregNoel>	For one thing, VariantDir creates new filesystem space, Repository doesn't
 122 19:30:42 <garyo-home>	OK, so how about we save 1973 for discussion of what src_dir should/could be, but defer it.
 123 19:31:22 <GregNoel>	Let's just leave it with Steven as an 'anytime' and wait for either a wiki page or a mailing list discussion
 124 19:31:32 <stevenknight>	okay
 125 19:31:35 <stevenknight>	don't hold your breath... :-)
 126 19:31:39 <stevenknight>	2087:
 127 19:32:03 <garyo-home>	consensus 1.x p3 ludwig, right?
 128 19:32:03 <stevenknight>	consensus 1.x p3 ludwig
 129 19:32:03 <GregNoel>	consensus
 130 19:32:04 <stevenknight>	yes
 131 19:32:04 <GregNoel>	yes
 132 19:32:16 <GregNoel>	done
 133 19:32:24 <stevenknight>	2183:  i'm okay with 1.0.x
 134 19:32:26 <GregNoel>	2183
 135 19:32:44 <garyo-home>	2183: didn't read carefully enough to make sure this wouldn't have unintended consequences.  Either of you?
 136 19:33:06 <garyo-home>	(But it looks fine in the quick read I gave it.)
 137 19:33:39 <GregNoel>	All it does is add a suffix.  I don't know what .sx is, but it appears harmless otherwise.
 138 19:34:06 <garyo-home>	ok then.
 139 19:34:13 <GregNoel>	who?
 140 19:34:35 <stevenknight>	not me!
 141 19:34:35 <garyo-home>	I'll do it.
 142 19:34:35 <GregNoel>	Not seeing any volunteers, I'll do it
 143 19:34:49 <GregNoel>	Ah, a little overlap
 144 19:35:16 <GregNoel>	Gary, I may have more spare time over the next couple of weeks
 145 19:35:35 <garyo-home>	OK, it's yours then.  That's not a sentence I would be likely to utter. :-/
 146 19:36:02 <GregNoel>	{;-}
 147 19:36:03 <garyo-home>	How about 2184, a little more interesting?
 148 19:36:27 <stevenknight>	:-)
 149 19:37:12 <garyo-home>	I'm w/ Steven on 2184.  1.1, p3, accept patch as is.  I'll do it.
 150 19:38:03 <GregNoel>	OK, I guess I missed the issue.  SCons should normally duplicate LIBPATH entries when using VariantDir or Repository
 151 19:38:21 <GregNoel>	It'd be a bug if it didn't
 152 19:38:46 <garyo-home>	You have a point.  But this bug is not about that exactly.
 153 19:39:16 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll let you untangle it
 154 19:39:22 <garyo-home>	Will do.
 155 19:39:31 <GregNoel>	1.1 p3?
 156 19:39:44 <garyo-home>	OK.
 157 19:39:45 <stevenknight>	done
 158 19:39:45 <GregNoel>	done
 159 19:39:59 <stevenknight>	2185:  bill's not here to defend himself... :-)
 160 19:40:25 <garyo-home>	Greg: I think we agree.  You say wontfix, I say doc, but nobody wants the new function.
 161 19:40:37 <GregNoel>	Concur
 162 19:40:47 <garyo-home>	I'll try to write up something for 1.x.  P4 ok?
 163 19:40:52 <GregNoel>	works
 164 19:41:31 <GregNoel>	(Bill had the original issue about Explicit, changed to a doc issue, so this really shouldn't be necessary)
 165 19:42:06 <GregNoel>	2166 consensus?
 166 19:42:10 <garyo-home>	2166: yep
 167 19:42:17 <stevenknight>	yes
 168 19:42:20 <stevenknight>	2186:
 169 19:42:34 <garyo-home>	I looked at this, I think it's OK as is.
 170 19:42:46 <stevenknight>	makes sense to me
 171 19:42:50 <garyo-home>	OP should just use F90PATH.
 172 19:43:03 <GregNoel>	I hadn't found F90PATH, but that makes sense
 173 19:43:12 <GregNoel>	wontfix
 174 19:43:32 <garyo-home>	It's in the man page, I just checked.
 175 19:44:46 <GregNoel>	hello?
 176 19:44:49 <garyo-home>	So 2187?
 177 19:45:19 <GregNoel>	2167 consensus?
 178 19:45:33 <stevenknight>	?
 179 19:45:42 <garyo-home>	2167 or 2187?
 180 19:45:44 <stevenknight>	what number are we on?  i thought 2186 wontfix
 181 19:45:47 <GregNoel>	oops, 2187 consensus?
 182 19:45:47 <stevenknight>	2187:
 183 19:46:53 <GregNoel>	teeny, tiny little numbers, can't read them...
 184 19:45:59 <stevenknight>	yes, 1.0.1 greg
 185 19:46:00 <garyo-home>	2186: consensus wontfix
 186 19:46:07 <stevenknight>	er...
 187 19:46:39 <garyo-home>	and 2187: consensus 1.0.1 greg (?)
 188 19:46:51 <stevenknight>	yeah
 189 19:47:04 <stevenknight>	2187:  1.0.1 greg
 190 19:47:09 <GregNoel>	done
 191 19:47:14 <stevenknight>	greg, you can get that in tonight/tomorrow?
 192 19:47:31 <stevenknight>	i'm going to try to turn the checkpoint into 1.0.1 tomorrow (other time commitments allowing)
 193 19:48:00 <GregNoel>	2187?
 194 19:48:19 <stevenknight>	right
 195 19:48:24 <stevenknight>	the FindFile man page fix?
 196 19:48:31 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  I should be able to, but no promises...
 197 19:48:41 <stevenknight>	okay, i won't hold up things
 198 19:48:59 <stevenknight>	given the chaos i might not make my target anyway...  :-/
 199 19:49:25 <GregNoel>	what, a slip already???
 200 19:50:04 <GregNoel>	2188, consensus
 201 19:50:21 <garyo-home>	2188: consensus 1.x p4 greg?  (yes, interesting case!)
 202 19:50:22 <GregNoel>	2189, consensus
 203 19:50:47 <stevenknight>	agreed
 204 19:50:51 <garyo-home>	yes, 2189 too.
 205 19:51:16 <stevenknight>	agreed
 206 19:51:18 <stevenknight>	2190:
 207 19:51:30 <stevenknight>	not sure here
 208 19:51:48 <garyo-home>	Steven: you want to make porting autoconf scripts easier, right?
 209 19:52:01 <garyo-home>	Even if it's basically redundant functionality?
 210 19:52:25 <GregNoel>	I concur with the point, but I don't think this is the issue
 211 19:52:51 <garyo-home>	Greg: what's the real issue for you?
 212 19:53:09 <GregNoel>	Replacing Configure contexts with something better
 213 19:53:08 <stevenknight>	yeah, it feels like it's more inconsistency the user has to track if they're mentally in autoconf-land
 214 19:53:22 <stevenknight>	and have to do some of the tests completely differently because SCons has Python available
 215 19:53:25 <garyo-home>	steven: I think I agree, having thought about it.
 216 19:54:13 <garyo-home>	Greg: point taken, but not a great answer for this ticket.  And anyway, wouldn't we still need an autoconf-syntax-like CheckFile()?
 217 19:54:36 <stevenknight>	i think you want one, no matter what the solution ends up looking like
 218 19:54:58 <garyo-home>	I now think it should be 1.x p4, implemented as Greg suggests.
 219 19:55:01 <GregNoel>	Maybe.  What does it buy is to support two mechanisms?  One that works only in a Configure context and one that works everywhere?
 220 19:55:34 <stevenknight>	configuration checks look consistent
 221 19:55:39 <garyo-home>	Greg: as Steven says, if the user is porting their autoconf script, they're looking in our Configure doc to discover the mappings.
 222 19:55:49 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...
 223 19:55:57 <stevenknight>	less having to look in the manual for, "wait, how do I do this check vs. that check?"
 224 19:56:19 <GregNoel>	OK, I guess.
 225 19:57:20 <garyo-home>	OK then.  1.x p4(?) but who?  Can we assign someone else?  Needs test, doc, etc. - more work than implementation.
 226 19:57:58 <GregNoel>	(There are actually dozens of tests we could implement, and should eventually, but I'd rather apply that effort to creating a better-integrated Configure replacement.)
 227 19:58:07 <stevenknight>	i do agree with that
 228 19:58:27 <stevenknight>	i forget, this one doesn't come with a patch, does it?
 229 19:58:57 <GregNoel>	I don't think so; he's a newbie
 230 19:58:55 <stevenknight>	no
 231 19:59:02 <stevenknight>	1.x p4
 232 19:59:09 <GregNoel>	done
 233 19:59:10 <stevenknight>	invite him to submit a patch, ask on the dev list for help, etc.
 234 19:59:17 <GregNoel>	wilco
 235 19:59:29 <garyo-home>	Greg: I agree, but this seems pretty small.  OTOH, lots of small things == same effort as redo.  I like what Steven just suggested while I was typing.
 236 19:59:59 <stevenknight>	yeah, not big enough to distract from other important things
 237 20:00:06 <stevenknight>	but might be perfect to get a newbie more involved
 238 20:00:11 <GregNoel>	OK, that closes this spreadsheet.  On to the discussion?
 239 20:00:15 <garyo-home>	OK, that's the whole new issue sheet.
 240 20:00:26 <stevenknight>	yeah
 241 20:00:28 <garyo-home>	Yes, 1.0.2 vs. 1.1, right?
 242 20:00:31 <stevenknight>	here's my thinking
 243 20:00:42 <stevenknight>	doesn't seem like we have any burning fires that would require a 1.0.2
 244 20:00:50 <GregNoel>	yes
 245 20:00:50 <garyo-home>	agreed
 246 20:01:04 <stevenknight>	so the next release is 1.1 in three, maybe four weeks
 247 20:01:10 <stevenknight>	with whatever we can fit
 248 20:01:14 <GregNoel>	too short
 249 20:01:34 <stevenknight>	it's too short only if you're trying to fit a specific set of features into it
 250 20:01:34 <GregNoel>	I'd like to shoot for a 1 Nov release of 1.1
 251 20:01:47 <garyo-home>	3/4 wks too short for all the issues marked 1.x, but we could subset them?
 252 20:01:55 <GregNoel>	so a RC checkpoint a week ahead of that
 253 20:01:58 <stevenknight>	right
 254 20:02:09 <stevenknight>	3 weeks RC checkpoint, 4 weeks 1.1
 255 20:02:15 <stevenknight>	with whatever fits w/in 3 weeks
 256 20:02:26 <GregNoel>	There are about 20 issues in 1.0.1 and 1.0.x
 257 20:02:39 <GregNoel>	no way we could do them in a month
 258 20:03:07 <GregNoel>	including the ones already slated for 1.1, plus a few from 1.x p1
 259 20:04:05 <stevenknight>	so if we don't do them all in a month, what's the real harm?
 260 20:05:02 <GregNoel>	oops, that's _30_ issues, I typoed
 261 20:05:17 <garyo-home>	(I hate tigris's bug tracker formatting, can never find what I want.)
 262 20:05:48 <GregNoel>	You can can bookmark queries
 263 20:06:27 <garyo-home>	Yes, I need a good set of those.  Wish I could title them too.  But anyway...
 264 20:05:38 <GregNoel>	I thought you could change the title in Firefox?
 265 20:06:51 <GregNoel>	To me, a month is more like a bug-fix release; a typical release is three months.  Two months is a quick cycle for a "normal" release
 266 20:07:09 <stevenknight>	okay
 267 20:07:19 <GregNoel>	(Actually I put the queries on my home page in my wiki...)
 268 20:07:48 <garyo-home>	good idea!
 269 20:07:59 <stevenknight>	but is there any real harm in shipping what we have in three weeks and saying that's 1.1?  I don't see it
 270 20:08:34 <garyo-home>	Steven: do you have some issues that need to be fixed soon for your customers?
 271 20:08:34 <GregNoel>	If you release too often, people stop upgrading
 272 20:08:53 <bdbaddog>	Good evening all, just read the whole meeting thus far. With Regard to 1.0.x vs 1.1 vs 2.0
 273 20:09:05 <garyo-home>	I just think not much will have changed significantly in 3 weeks (but I'll do my best)
 274 20:09:11 <GregNoel>	it's too much hassle to keep upgrading every month
 275 20:09:25 <bdbaddog>	what I've seend  is 1.0.x is bugfixes. 1.1 would be feature addition, 2.x would break some compatability.
 276 20:09:28 <stevenknight>	no one's forcing anyone to upgrade every month
 277 20:09:28 <GregNoel>	Hi, Bill
 278 20:09:31 <garyo-home>	Hi Bill!
 279 20:09:37 <bdbaddog>	Hi.
 280 20:09:40 <stevenknight>	just because you "release early, release often"
 281 20:09:46 <bdbaddog>	So I may actually agree with Greg on this one..
 282 20:09:49 <bdbaddog>	:)
 283 20:10:03 <stevenknight>	shock!  horror! drama!
 284 20:10:06 <GregNoel>	but the one-decimal releases are intended to be places where people upgrade
 285 20:10:07 <bdbaddog>	unless theres a significant feature, 1.1 may not make sense.
 286 20:10:19 <garyo-home>	So call it 1.0.2 then?
 287 20:10:42 <stevenknight>	well, i guess the question is whether we're going to be feature-driven or date-driven, then...
 288 20:10:44 <bdbaddog>	I think so, unless there's a bug fix scheduled which is a notable feature.
 289 20:10:48 <GregNoel>	"release early, release often" applies to development releases
 290 20:11:11 <bdbaddog>	You can go date driven releases, but number as I mentioned.
 291 20:11:39 <bdbaddog>	I think date driven makes real sense, although you may end up needing feature or 1.1 devel branch then.
 292 20:11:46 <stevenknight>	okay, so...  how about this...
 293 20:11:52 <stevenknight>	next release is in three weeks
 294 20:12:06 <stevenknight>	but we don't decide on whether it's 1.0.2 or 1.1 until the checkpoint date comes
 295 20:12:18 <bdbaddog>	depending on what gets fixed/added ?
 296 20:12:19 <stevenknight>	and we decide based on what's actually in there?
 297 20:12:22 <GregNoel>	hmmm...
 298 20:12:22 <garyo-home>	Right, depending on contents.
 299 20:12:22 <stevenknight>	yes
 300 20:12:28 <bdbaddog>	sounds good to me.
 301 20:12:36 <garyo-home>	I can go with that.
 302 20:12:36 <GregNoel>	problem is, one doesn't know what to focus on
 303 20:12:47 <bdbaddog>	that way we can stay consistant with what version number changes mean.
 304 20:12:51 <garyo-home>	Highest priority?
 305 20:12:52 <stevenknight>	that's what we're doing here, isn't it?
 306 20:13:21 <GregNoel>	yes, but highest priority has a number of new features
 307 20:13:52 <garyo-home>	I have to go, guys -- I'll read your decision later.
 308 20:13:57 <bdbaddog>	Greg: I see what you're saying, but in some sense we'll end up with many equivalent priority bugs, so at some point it will come down to interest level in the bug and ability to reproduce environment/toolset.
 309 20:14:07 <bdbaddog>	Gary - Good night to you!
 310 20:14:08 <stevenknight>	sure, so we're now saying highest priority of the union of 1.0.x and 1.x issues are all candidates for this next release
 311 20:14:10 <GregNoel>	three weeks implies 1.0.2 but new features implies 1.1
 312 20:14:13 <garyo-home>	g'night.
 313 20:14:17 <GregNoel>	G'night
 314 20:14:26 <stevenknight>	if three weeks implies 1.0.2 what *does* imply 1.1?
 315 20:14:40 <GregNoel>	two or three months
 316 20:14:45 <bdbaddog>	Greg: Three weeks doesn't imply 1.0.2 nor 1.1, just a time frame for next release.
 317 20:14:51 <stevenknight>	with no intervening release?
 318 20:15:12 <stevenknight>	i don't agree with the idea that the only way to release a 1.1 is to go dormant for 2-3 months
 319 20:15:14 <bdbaddog>	This is fairly common in commercial products in my space. Someone fixes/add's something notable you bump the minor version at the next release interval.
 320 20:15:38 <bdbaddog>	No real issue (for the most part) with customers accepting it.
 321 20:15:40 <GregNoel>	But how frequent are the releases?
 322 20:15:51 <bdbaddog>	monthly sounds like to me?
 323 20:15:53 <stevenknight>	~ monthly
 324 20:15:54 <stevenknight>	yes
 325 20:16:52 <GregNoel>	bdbaddog, I meant how often are the commercial releases.  Not every month, I'm sure
 326 20:16:56 <bdbaddog>	Greg: can you explain why you see 1.1 tied to a specific timeframe vs 1.0.2? So we can understand, I think that's the gap we're running into.
 327 20:17:23 <bdbaddog>	Greg yes. every month sometimes every week, depends on the target audience and what's the qualification overhead (which can vary widely)
 328 20:17:42 <GregNoel>	A minor release every month just seems too often.  I don't upgrade my software anything like that often
 329 20:18:11 <bdbaddog>	True, but if you have a bug and it's fixed in the next release, do you care what it's called?
 330 20:19:06 <GregNoel>	well, depends on the bug, but it wouldn't surprise me to have to wait for more than a month for the next release
 331 20:19:18 <bdbaddog>	but would that make you "happy"?
 332 20:19:56 <GregNoel>	I don't see what you're trying to make me say.  It makes me neither happy nor unhappy
 333 20:19:57 <bdbaddog>	The main reason people in my space make frequent releases is because it makes the customers happy, they have sufficient tests and resources to do a full test run that frequently.
 334 20:20:50 <GregNoel>	So, how often does, say, Debian make a release?
 335 20:21:06 <bdbaddog>	So if there's two products, say cmake and scons, and one of them releases bug fixes with greater regularity, rather than waiting say 3 months for a feature release arbitrarily, one will get greater mind share in the community.
 336 20:21:20 <bdbaddog>	Debian is a HUGH product and not one which makes sense to compare scons with.
 337 20:21:29 <bdbaddog>	HUGE sorry.
 338 20:21:54 <GregNoel>	I see your point, but a release takes resources at both ends, so doing it too often doesn't make a lot of sense
 339 20:22:13 <stevenknight>	agree, i guess we're disagreeing about what is "too often"
 340 20:22:17 <bdbaddog>	True. Too often. Then you end up only releasing and not doing work.
 341 20:22:26 <bdbaddog>	A SCons release takes a few hours of work right?
 342 20:22:53 <GregNoel>	It seems to take Steven at least a full working day
 343 20:23:01 <GregNoel>	more like two
 344 20:23:12 <stevenknight>	that's just my lack of organizational ability / juggling other things
 345 20:23:28 <stevenknight>	i kick off a build / test, start doing other things, take too long to get back to it...
 346 20:23:35 <bdbaddog>	Steven - how much clock time do you think?
 347 20:23:37 <stevenknight>	end-to-end, it can definitely be done in a few hours
 348 20:23:47 <bdbaddog>	ok.
 349 20:24:25 <bdbaddog>	so 2 hours every month (give or take) to do monthly release. Esp once we get a handful of others able to do the releases, shouldn't be too much of a burden?
 350 20:24:33 <stevenknight>	if you skip the tests (i.e. trust the ongoing branch testing) and don't word-smith the announcement the way I do, could probably be in one hour
 351 20:24:50 <bdbaddog>	I think those are important tasks which shouldnt' be skipped.
 352 20:24:54 <bdbaddog>	(my 2cents)
 353 20:25:12 <GregNoel>	We need to add testing for checkpoint branch, but I think they're necessary.
 354 20:25:32 <GregNoel>	That's one reason we have a checkpoint branch, after all
 355 20:25:42 <GregNoel>	i.e., buildbot
 356 20:25:52 <stevenknight>	agreed
 357 20:26:09 <bdbaddog>	yup. (Steven did you get a chance to change the A record?)
 358 20:26:16 <stevenknight>	larger point:  the wall-clock time to release shouldn't be a deciding factor on our frequency
 359 20:26:22 <stevenknight>	CNAME
 360 20:26:25 <stevenknight>	no, i haven't
 361 20:26:30 <bdbaddog>	ok. no worries.
 362 20:26:49 <stevenknight>	also, my home system is still down
 363 20:27:00 <stevenknight>	we have comcast, but the space where it's going to be set up is still full of boxes..  :-(
 364 20:27:05 <bdbaddog>	Steven - I think Greg has a point, though it doesn't apply to 2 hrs, that if it takes a long time say 1/2 the release frequency, then it's too often.
 365 20:27:16 <bdbaddog>	:)
 366 20:27:45 <stevenknight>	okay, i agree with that
 367 20:28:25 <stevenknight>	still leaves us deciding how often, and what to name them
 368 20:28:35 <bdbaddog>	Greg are you o.k. with 1.1 or 1.0.2 depending on what gets checked in during the next 3 weeks? (Does that seem reasonable given this discussion?)
 369 20:28:48 <bdbaddog>	I think monthly is good, naming depending on content.
 370 20:29:09 <bdbaddog>	that gives predictability to the users/developers, and flexibility to name appropriate to what the content is.
 371 20:29:10 <GregNoel>	I think the next release should be two months, but there should be approximiately bi-weekly checkpoints
 372 20:29:40 <bdbaddog>	Greg - so we got you down from 3months to 2 months? :) so we're 1/3 of the way there.
 373 20:30:12 <stevenknight>	half way!
 374 20:30:13 <GregNoel>	No, I always wanted two months; there was a discussion on the mailing list that convinced me
 375 20:31:04 <GregNoel>	I was assuming the decision was three weeks or three months; Gary made a point that made me think two months would be a better match to what we wanted to do
 376 20:30:42 <bdbaddog>	:) o.k. so once again, why 2 months? is that 2 months for the 1.1 or just 2 months between releases?
 377 20:31:14 <GregNoel>	two months for 1.1
 378 20:31:54 <GregNoel>	thirty issues from 1.0.1 and 1.0.x plus another dozen from 1.x p1 and other sources
 379 20:32:30 <bdbaddog>	Seems likely that the content for next release will make it a 1.0.2, but say someone has a great idea worthy of 1.1, and we decide to bump stuff to get it in, and/or a new resource pops up with it, then would it make sense to do 1.1 in 1 month?
 380 20:32:30 <GregNoel>	That's the focus; if we don't make it, we release with what we have
 381 20:32:58 <stevenknight>	and scale back the name from 1.1 to 1.0.2, yes?
 382 20:33:16 <bdbaddog>	Greg: Yes I agree.  We try and get the 1.0.x bugs done, however if something worthy of 1.1 makes it in, then 1.1 it is?
 383 20:33:32 <GregNoel>	1.0.2 should be bug fixes to regressions; we haven't had any of those; most of the stuff queued up is new features
 384 20:36:19 <GregNoel>	sigh.  you want three weeks to 1.1, so be it.  Is it three weeks to the release candidate or three weeks to the release?
 385 20:37:08 <GregNoel>	hello?
 386 20:37:09 <bdbaddog>	3 weeks to candidate, I'm not saying I want the next release to be 1.1, I"m just saying that should something worthy of the 1.1 version be done in that time frame, then it would make sense to label it as such.
 387 20:37:42 <GregNoel>	Almost everything I have queued up would meet that criteria.
 388 20:37:50 <bdbaddog>	that we wouldn't (from my point of view) artificially hold off releasing a new feature and/or label it with 1.0.2.
 389 20:38:33 <GregNoel>	If you're going to let non-regressions in, just call it 1.1 and be done with it.
 390 20:39:37 <bdbaddog>	I think we can wait til RC to decide what to call it. That's what I'm trying to convince you. :)
 391 20:40:20 <GregNoel>	If you force me to make that choice, I'm not going to put in any non-regressions to leave our options open.  If you want non-regressions in, call it 1.1
 392 20:41:13 <bdbaddog>	So the process is make the change, submit the patch for review on dev list, then people critique, and then get the go ahead right?
 393 20:42:10 <GregNoel>	sure, as always.  But I won't submit non-regression patches to a potentially bug-fix release.
 394 20:42:18 <bdbaddog>	So, yes, likely we go ahead and check in regressions, and the release team can decide on what non regression fixes get in.
 395 20:42:32 <bdbaddog>	you can send the review mail, and the release team can decide?
 396 20:43:13 <GregNoel>	That would imply that the release team actually commented on the bugs.  Only rarely do they.
 397 20:43:50 <GregNoel>	And most of the time, I check stuff in immediately after I post the review so I can start work on the next one.
 398 20:44:06 <bdbaddog>	Valid point, though my patches usually do (and rightly so, since I'm the newbee).
 399 20:44:25 <bdbaddog>	So you're working with just one client then?
 400 20:44:34 <GregNoel>	One client?
 401 20:44:39 <bdbaddog>	sandbox
 402 20:45:13 <GregNoel>	Oh, no, I have multiple sandboxes, but I create the reviews in a common area so I'm sure it's correct.
 403 20:45:34 <bdbaddog>	I see, to insure they don't conflict?
 404 20:45:37 <GregNoel>	yes
 405 20:46:57 <GregNoel>	Have we lost Steven?
 406 20:46:59 <bdbaddog>	I see, o.k. Ahhh.. o.k. since you're not necessarily submiting at that time..and therefore can't sync your other sandboxes to verify they work.  hmm.. time for bazaar or a DRCS
 407 20:47:22 <GregNoel>	off-topic for tonight
 408 20:47:31 <bdbaddog>	yup. true.
 409 20:48:00 <bdbaddog>	hmm Steven's still signed on. Donno.
 410 20:48:07 <GregNoel>	So what should I start checking in?
 411 20:48:26 <bdbaddog>	Seems like regressions, and then review emails for non-regressions, would be my vote.
 412 20:49:09 <bdbaddog>	That would let you work in a non-regression sandbox(es), and sync with your regression checkins to make sure the non-regression fixes aren't broken?
 413 20:49:17 <GregNoel>	Sigh.  I may have one regression ready, but the others are all new features, so just the one, huh?
 414 20:49:44 <bdbaddog>	Float the non-regressions for review, and at least I'll promise to chime in.. :)
 415 20:50:19 <GregNoel>	Honestly, I see no reason to submit a review unless it's about to be applied.  They age entirely too quickly.
 416 20:50:23 <bdbaddog>	Likely they'll go in if they're done, and then it'll be come 1.1
 417 20:50:52 <bdbaddog>	true and they are about to be applied. Unless theres a real reason not to.
 418 20:51:09 <GregNoel>	then it's a 1.1.  call it that now.
 419 20:51:21 <bdbaddog>	works for me if you've got the patches ready.
 420 20:51:37 <GregNoel>	yes, I do.
 421 20:52:00 <GregNoel>	OK, 1.1 RC in three weeks, release a week later?
 422 20:52:07 <bdbaddog>	yup.
 423 20:52:10 <GregNoel>	Any intermediate checkpoints?
 424 20:52:28 <GregNoel>	I'd like one in ten days or so.
 425 20:52:32 <bdbaddog>	Every check in generates a checkpoint (once Steven's machine's online)
 426 20:52:41 <GregNoel>	Not true.
 427 20:52:48 <bdbaddog>	I'll work with Steven to get automation back up.
 428 20:53:01 <bdbaddog>	ahh. you mean posted to ,etc.
 429 20:53:18 <GregNoel>	A checkpoint only occurs when someone (Steven) prepares it; it's a separate branch
 430 20:53:29 <bdbaddog>	o.k. every 10 days sounds reasonable.
 431 20:53:57 <bdbaddog>	I'll work with Steven to qualify one of my machines for such a task.
 432 20:54:12 <GregNoel>	Sigh.  I wanted bi-weekly checkpoints with a release in two months, but I'll live with this.
 433 20:54:30 <bdbaddog>	Thanks for being flexible.
 434 20:54:52 <bdbaddog>	No doubt if it's bad we'll get feedback from user comunity.
 435 20:55:00 <bdbaddog>	But I think this will be o.k. with them.
 436 20:55:12 <bdbaddog>	At least my clients will be o.k. with it.
 437 20:55:15 <GregNoel>	Flexible?  Hardly; it's the consensus process.  Majority rules once everyone agrees that their position has been understood by all.
 438 20:55:40 <bdbaddog>	In theory, but doesn't always work that way if there's bad apples out there.
 439 20:55:42 <GregNoel>	OK, we'll see how it goes; I still think it's the wrong choice.
 440 20:56:11 <GregNoel>	It works for IEEE, even in practice.
 441 20:56:26 <bdbaddog>	:)
 442 20:58:52 <GregNoel>	My calendar says three weeks is 22 Sep; four weeks is 29 Sep
 443 20:56:48 <bdbaddog>	Thanks Greg. I've gotta do a little work before I turn in for the night. Did I hear you might be up here in Oct?
 444 20:57:37 <GregNoel>	If SCons is invited.  There're still some impediments to that, but hopefully we can clear them up in time.
 445 20:58:18 <stevenknight>	yep, that ball's in my court
 446 20:58:32 <bdbaddog>	O.k. If you make it up here, next meals on me. Also we'll arrange a bay area scons thing and you can meet some more of the folks if you'd like.
 447 20:58:34 <stevenknight>	greg, anything in addition to that paperwork?
 448 20:58:37 <stevenknight>	that you know of?
 449 20:59:00 <GregNoel>	Hi, welcome back
 450 20:59:15 <stevenknight>	hi
 451 20:59:25 <stevenknight>	lot going on here...
 452 20:59:46 <bdbaddog>	:)
 453 20:59:59 <GregNoel>	No, but there's been feedback on the mailing list that the hoops are not as obvious as one could hope.  And the instructions are not as good as they could be.  It'll take longer than you expect.
 454 21:00:05 <stevenknight>	bdbaddog:  getting an Ubuntu machine ready for building / releasing should be a snap now
 455 21:00:27 <stevenknight>	i checked in scripts that should set things up appropriately
 456 21:00:36 <stevenknight>	at least avoid the what-packages-do-I-need hell
 457 21:00:49 <bdbaddog>	o.k. I'll give em a try this week. I think my laptops setup at this point for linux.
 458 21:00:54 <stevenknight>	i used a VM that i populated with the script to do that last checkpoint release
 459 21:02:15 <GregNoel>	Comment in passing: I've got the buildbot stuff on my OS X platform, but it's still shaky.  I'll probably be asking for a username/password soon to connect with the existing system.
 460 21:02:36 <stevenknight>	cool
 461 21:03:55 <GregNoel>	OK, my wife has waited long enough to watch the Olympics closing.  We TiVoed it and have been gradually catching up.  See you later
 462 21:04:05 <stevenknight>	later greg -- thanks
 463 21:04:13 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 464 21:04:20 *	stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
 465 21:05:59 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.1/2008070208]")
 466 21:16:48 *	bdbaddog ( has left #scons

BugParty/IrcLog2008-09-01 (last edited 2008-09-02 22:26:52 by ip68-7-77-81)