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 17:56:53 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   2 17:59:18 <GregNoel>	Hey, Gary...
   3 17:59:25 <garyo-home>	Hi, Greg.
   4 18:00:00 <GregNoel>	Steven's not here yet; anyone else here for the bug party?
   5 17:59:48 <garyo-home>	I gave a talk on SCons last weekend.  Just need to upload it to the wiki.
   6 18:00:27 <GregNoel>	Yes, you mentioned it last time.  The wiki sounds like a good place.
   7 18:01:06 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@72.14.224.1) has joined #scons
   8 18:01:14 <GregNoel>	Speaking of the devil...
   9 18:01:28 <garyo-home>	Hi, Steven.
  10 18:01:51 <garyo-home>	I just uploaded my SCons talk to the wiki. http://scons.org/wiki/GaryOberbrunner?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=SCons-talk-2008.pdf
  11 18:01:53 <stevenknight>	hey
  12 18:03:01 <garyo-home>	So, how about getting going?
  13 18:03:11 <GregNoel>	I'll look at it afterward; yes, let's go.
  14 18:03:22 <GregNoel>	2220
  15 18:03:44 <stevenknight>	sorry, hang on, still getting set up
  16 18:04:12 <GregNoel>	Apparently it works in 0.98.something, but not since
  17 18:04:06 <garyo-home>	close as invalid, make new issue w/ test case & description, then retriage?
  18 18:04:40 <GregNoel>	Yes, but I'd feel better if we settled the timeframe now.
  19 18:04:56 <stevenknight>	agree w/garyo-home re: invalid and new issue
  20 18:05:05 <garyo-home>	IMHO it depends on how serious the *actual* issue is.
  21 18:05:20 <garyo-home>	If it only happens with nested builders, then 2.x p4 etc.
  22 18:05:43 <GregNoel>	No, my example used nothing but VariantDir
  23 18:06:09 <garyo-home>	Ah yes, I see that one now.
  24 18:06:13 <stevenknight>	okay, if greg's example is pure variantdir and a 0.98 regression
  25 18:06:24 <stevenknight>	then either 1.x
  26 18:06:39 <stevenknight>	or 1.2 (with likelihood of falling off the plate depending on priority relative to other stuff)
  27 18:06:44 <stevenknight>	my name on it
  28 18:07:09 <garyo-home>	ok, then 1.x p3?  1.2 is impossible at this point IMHO.
  29 18:07:11 <GregNoel>	Then I'd suggest 1.3 or 1.x
  30 18:07:44 <stevenknight>	1.x p3 is fine with me
  31 18:07:50 <GregNoel>	ok, done
  32 18:08:14 <garyo-home>	2225: 1.x Jim p3?
  33 18:08:21 <GregNoel>	2226, yes
  34 18:08:43 <stevenknight>	i have 2225 next...
  35 18:08:43 <GregNoel>	oops, 2225
  36 18:08:44 <garyo-home>	2225 or 2226, Greg?
  37 18:09:32 <GregNoel>	The new spreadsheet from Google allows me to set the font larger; you bet I'm going to use that next time so I can read the thing.
  38 18:09:15 <garyo-home>	consensus?
  39 18:09:38 <GregNoel>	yes, consensus
  40 18:09:48 <stevenknight>	2225 yes consensus
  41 18:09:55 <stevenknight>	glad to hear from jim...
  42 18:10:07 <GregNoel>	Yes, we've missed him
  43 18:10:21 <garyo-home>	re: jim, yes!
  44 18:10:00 <garyo-home>	2226: wontfix
  45 18:10:49 <stevenknight>	2226:  greg, agree w/WONTFIX?
  46 18:10:49 <GregNoel>	I can see the use case for 2226: do it once for the common case, rather than in dribs and drabs.
  47 18:11:10 <GregNoel>	I'd like to see a better patch, for sure
  48 18:11:14 <jtc>	For 2225, I agree with Jim's comment on the spreadsheet that in the long term we need to look at quoting more holistically. In particular, I think we need to look if we can defer quoting until just before spawning the command. Most make implementations will avoid spawning a subshell if there are no shell metacharacters.  It is difficult for scons to do the same if everything has been quoted (although I suppose a de-quoter could be written).
  49 18:11:14 <garyo-home>	But it only speeds up the initial build.  After that it's cached anyway.
  50 18:11:33 <garyo-home>	Hi jtc!
  51 18:11:45 <stevenknight>	jtc: hi!  agree w/what you said re: quoting
  52 18:12:09 <garyo-home>	Yes, definitely.  We just need to keep all cmd lines as lists or CLVars etc. until the last minute.
  53 18:12:10 <jtc>	At IDE, we experienced problems with high -jN, as the subshells caused us to run against the per-user process limit twice as fast as we would have liked.
  54 18:12:24 <GregNoel>	Yes, I hope the subprocess module will allow us to clarify it.
  55 18:12:34 <garyo-home>	Good point, Greg.
  56 18:12:48 <stevenknight>	subprocess will help
  57 18:13:02 <stevenknight>	but you still have command pipelines and redirection that will have to be detected
  58 18:13:17 <garyo-home>	Sure, but if it's all in one place it's not that hard.
  59 18:13:18 <GregNoel>	I don't see Jim here, but we've talked aabout how to do the quoting internally; maybe we should jointly prepare a proposal.
  60 18:13:35 <stevenknight>	that sounds good
  61 18:13:40 <garyo-home>	That would be great.  Discuss on ML.
  62 18:13:47 <GregNoel>	yes
  63 18:13:51 <stevenknight>	on to 2226?
  64 18:13:58 <stevenknight>	or back to it
  65 18:14:17 <garyo-home>	2226: we have too much to do already; this is a trivial addition even if it were fully formed.
  66 18:14:36 <GregNoel>	for 2225, I'm only proposing that we give it the 'toolchain' keyword so we look at it again when we're revamping the toolchain.
  67 18:14:49 <GregNoel>	sigh, 2226,
  68 18:14:49 <stevenknight>	2225:  toolchain++
  69 18:14:55 <garyo-home>	ok I guess, but I don't think it has anything to do w/ that really.
  70 18:15:08 <stevenknight>	sorry, i'm confused
  71 18:15:43 <GregNoel>	My eyes can't resolve 5 v. 6 so I keep typing the wrong one.  Sorry.
  72 18:15:56 <garyo-home>	no prob.
  73 18:16:03 <stevenknight>	2226:  not clear if David's trying to make it easier to configure or more efficient (one compilation vs. multiple)
  74 18:16:17 <garyo-home>	I thought it was just efficiency.
  75 18:16:19 <GregNoel>	a combination of both
  76 18:16:41 <stevenknight>	i think you give up too much by putting everything into one compilation
  77 18:16:45 <GregNoel>	trying a dozen things at once is much faster if they all work;
  78 18:17:00 <GregNoel>	if not, you fall back to testing one at a time
  79 18:17:32 <stevenknight>	within the call?  or do you have to write that logic in your SConscript?
  80 18:17:40 <garyo-home>	imho, put it on the wiki as a custom SConf test.
  81 18:18:06 <garyo-home>	I think David's point is that on most platforms all the funcs will be there, so you just want a quick sanity check.
  82 18:18:25 <GregNoel>	yes
  83 18:18:27 <jtc>	As the maintainer of the autotools build for ACE/TAO (which may be the largest single autotools using project), I'm not sure if that holds.
  84 18:18:46 <garyo-home>	jtc: I agree, just pointing out his rationale.
  85 18:19:27 <jtc>	For example, it has feature tests for traditional UNIX and traditional MS Windows APIs.  You typically won't find both.
  86 18:19:55 <garyo-home>	right, that's why I think the whole idea's a bit questionable.
  87 18:19:57 <GregNoel>	Uh, no, you'd combine the *IX tests or the DOS tests not both in the same flow
  88 18:20:49 <GregNoel>	But I'm willing to go along; we're taking too long on this.
  89 18:20:51 <garyo-home>	greg: true, but you're still not going to test for *every* DOS func you call, so it's not really here nor there.
  90 18:21:23 <garyo-home>	How about 2227?
  91 18:21:34 <stevenknight>	yeah, let's move on -- this really seems like an unnecessary optimization
  92 18:21:40 <stevenknight>	2227: 
  93 18:22:07 <garyo-home>	2227 is the first time I've ever heard anyone say "ParseConfig works fine on windows"
  94 18:22:11 <garyo-home>	:-/
  95 18:22:17 <stevenknight>	consensus 2.x p3 ?
  96 18:22:29 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me
  97 18:22:31 <GregNoel>	ok, 
  98 18:22:46 <GregNoel>	maybe we'll change our mind by then
  99 18:23:14 <GregNoel>	2228, consensus?
 100 18:23:27 <garyo-home>	yep
 101 18:23:30 <stevenknight>	2228:  done
 102 18:23:42 <GregNoel>	2229, consensus?
 103 18:23:43 <garyo-home>	2229, ditto
 104 18:23:59 <stevenknight>	2229:  consensus
 105 18:23:58 <GregNoel>	2230
 106 18:24:19 <garyo-home>	I'd like it, but maybe makes more sense for 2.x than 1.x.
 107 18:24:34 <GregNoel>	2230, I'll go with Steven
 108 18:24:43 <stevenknight>	2230:  okay, 2.x or anytime?
 109 18:25:11 <garyo-home>	I think it's worth 2.x rather than anytime
 110 18:25:16 <stevenknight>	okay, 2.x
 111 18:25:33 <GregNoel>	you suggested 1.x in the spreadsheet?
 112 18:26:10 <stevenknight>	after more thought i'm agreewing w/garyo's suggestion that 2.x is more realistic
 113 18:26:21 <GregNoel>	ok, I'll go with 2.x.  what priority?
 114 18:26:45 <garyo-home>	p3 or p4, steven's preference
 115 18:26:49 <stevenknight>	p3
 116 18:26:51 <GregNoel>	done
 117 18:26:54 <garyo-home>	2231: more warn opts
 118 18:27:08 <GregNoel>	Er, not quite.
 119 18:27:41 <GregNoel>	The idea is that a user may not know which new deprecation flags have been added
 120 18:28:03 <GregNoel>	so they just use --warn=all-deprecated and they get all of them
 121 18:28:18 <stevenknight>	that's what --warn=deprecated is supposed to do
 122 18:28:35 <stevenknight>	the hierarchy means that it will match all of the subclassed DeprecatedWarnings classes
 123 18:28:51 <GregNoel>	No, the first deprecation stage is a warning that is _off_ by default
 124 18:29:05 <stevenknight>	???
 125 18:29:18 <GregNoel>	We didn't use it in this last round, but that's the way it's supposed to be.
 126 18:29:12 <stevenknight>	if you specify --warn=deprecated that means "on"
 127 18:29:21 <stevenknight>	and it will (or should) match your explicit settings
 128 18:29:26 <stevenknight>	before it looks at the defaults
 129 18:29:49 <GregNoel>	So there's a state you can't specify on the command line?
 130 18:29:49 <stevenknight>	didn't use what in this last round?
 131 18:29:58 <stevenknight>	what state?
 132 18:30:34 <GregNoel>	Three states, just like it says in the issue: warning off by default, warning on by default, warning not suppressible.
 133 18:31:11 <GregNoel>	And three master control options: turn on options normally off, use the default, and turn off suppressible options.
 134 18:31:35 <stevenknight>	sorry, i really don't get it -- i don't think we should ever have warnings that aren't suppressible
 135 18:32:10 <GregNoel>	OK, you will get screams of outrage when users are suddenly forced to upgrade.
 136 18:32:28 <stevenknight>	???
 137 18:32:59 <GregNoel>	Yes, there will be a set of people who _always_ run with --warn=no-deprecated
 138 18:33:25 <GregNoel>	They will be rudely surprised when they are suddenly forced to change their scripts
 139 18:32:04 <stevenknight>	maybe we should take this off line so you can explain it to me
 140 18:33:11 <garyo-home>	I think offlining this is a good idea.
 141 18:33:50 <GregNoel>	I'll agree to that, so retriage the issue next time?
 142 18:33:57 <garyo-home>	ok
 143 18:34:03 <stevenknight>	ok
 144 18:34:14 <garyo-home>	(w/ additional info in the ticket)
 145 18:34:22 <GregNoel>	ok
 146 18:34:35 <GregNoel>	2232, I checked, it's fixed, I'll close it
 147 18:34:46 <garyo-home>	great
 148 18:34:50 <stevenknight>	cool
 149 18:35:09 <garyo-home>	2233: I'll reply to OP and get details
 150 18:35:20 <GregNoel>	good, I'll leave it to you
 151 18:35:32 <stevenknight>	2233:  good, thanks
 152 18:35:39 <GregNoel>	retriage next time then?
 153 18:35:59 <garyo-home>	sure, depending on reply.
 154 18:36:18 <GregNoel>	done
 155 18:37:21 <GregNoel>	2234, consensus for anytime?  I don't like making an actual defect an open-ended issue.
 156 18:38:26 <garyo-home>	It seems really easy; 1.x should be OK.
 157 18:38:35 <stevenknight>	2234:  1.x is fine with me
 158 18:38:50 <GregNoel>	what priority?
 159 18:39:05 <stevenknight>	p3
 160 18:39:11 <GregNoel>	done
 161 18:39:27 <GregNoel>	2235
 162 18:39:48 <garyo-home>	definitely make code agree w/ doc here
 163 18:40:17 <stevenknight>	2235:  agree
 164 18:40:36 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll run regressions and see what it catches.  As far as I know, there's only one test that does anything with them.
 165 18:40:48 <garyo-home>	(hmm, my kids are still awake, it's 9:40 on a school night... grr)
 166 18:41:02 <stevenknight>	garyo-home:  i feel your pain...
 167 18:41:07 <garyo-home>	greg: regressions = good idea.
 168 18:41:22 <GregNoel>	OK, anytime is acceptable?
 169 18:41:24 <stevenknight>	okay, done with current issues
 170 18:41:29 <jtc>	the curse of parenthood...
 171 18:41:33 <stevenknight>	anytime is fine with me -- or research
 172 18:41:53 <garyo-home>	anytime
 173 18:41:54 <GregNoel>	anytime
 174 18:42:00 <GregNoel>	done
 175 18:42:01 <stevenknight>	done
 176 18:42:22 <GregNoel>	One question before we go on...
 177 18:42:50 <garyo-home>	Hey, allofasudden I can edit 2005h2 and never could before (using the regular link).  Maybe it's the new google docs upgrade.
 178 18:42:55 <garyo-home>	yes, greg?
 179 18:43:17 <GregNoel>	Steven mentioned that he's normally getting off the shuttle at 18h30 or thereabouts; should we move the time earlier by a half-hour?
 180 18:43:45 <garyo-home>	That makes it a little harder for me.
 181 18:45:04 <GregNoel>	I suspected that, but it took us 45 min to clear tonight's issues; we need more than a half-hour if we're meeting at 18h00
 182 18:45:25 <stevenknight>	i could see about shifting my schedule on the nights we have these
 183 18:45:33 <stevenknight>	so happened that i worked from home today
 184 18:45:54 <GregNoel>	Always a good schedule... {;-}
 185 18:46:10 <garyo-home>	I could probably do it at 18h30 though, since it's only every other week.
 186 18:47:02 <GregNoel>	Is that better for you, Steven?
 187 18:47:15 <stevenknight>	probably a little
 188 18:47:29 <stevenknight>	if i take the shuttle on those nights, it gets in right about 18h30
 189 18:47:42 <stevenknight>	but i could find a wifi cafe and join pretty shortly after
 190 18:47:43 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll post it that way; Steven, will you keep us informed if it has to move?
 191 18:47:50 <stevenknight>	will do
 192 18:48:09 <GregNoel>	OK, onward.
 193 18:48:18 <garyo-home>	Wait, I meant to say half hour earlier would be ok -- but half hour later is better for me, is that what we just agreed on?
 194 18:48:33 <stevenknight>	right, half hour later, 18h30 PDT, 21h30 EDT
 195 18:48:40 <garyo-home>	ok, thanks!
 196 18:48:51 <stevenknight>	cool
 197 18:49:03 <stevenknight>	shall we make some headway on 2005h2?
 198 18:49:39 <garyo-home>	1230: consensus worksforme
 199 18:49:40 <GregNoel>	worksforme
 200 18:49:45 <stevenknight>	done
 201 18:49:47 <stevenknight>	1235:
 202 18:49:54 <garyo-home>	consensus fixed
 203 18:50:03 <stevenknight>	i might have already closed it
 204 18:50:06 <stevenknight>	1241:
 205 18:50:14 <garyo-home>	invalid, I'm ok w/ that
 206 18:50:20 <stevenknight>	1241:  invalid
 207 18:50:21 <GregNoel>	done
 208 18:50:21 <stevenknight>	done
 209 18:50:40 <garyo-home>	1244: let me research that.  Looks like some good stuff might be in there.
 210 18:50:47 <stevenknight>	oh, damn -- that's right, i couldn't edit this for a while, either
 211 18:50:58 <stevenknight>	1244:  research, garyo, done
 212 18:51:10 <GregNoel>	done
 213 18:52:08 <GregNoel>	1249?
 214 18:52:23 <stevenknight>	1249:  i like your suggestion:  ludwig, research
 215 18:52:34 <garyo-home>	Could Mkdir just succeed if target exists, and also create intermediate dirs?
 216 18:52:54 <GregNoel>	It does.
 217 18:53:12 <GregNoel>	but it then tries to make the intermediate directory
 218 18:53:19 <GregNoel>	and fails
 219 18:53:26 <garyo-home>	... but why doesn't that Mkdir succeed also?
 220 18:53:52 <GregNoel>	os.mkdir fails: directory already exists
 221 18:54:00 <garyo-home>	It should trap that error and ignore it.
 222 18:54:27 <GregNoel>	Yes, it checks, but it checks _before_ the other Mkdir creates the directory
 223 18:55:00 <stevenknight>	needs some more research, then?  or greg, do you feel you've characterized it sufficiently to identify the right fix?
 224 18:55:21 <GregNoel>	Sure, but then, I think Ludwig should do it
 225 18:55:33 <garyo-home>	I can fix it in 10 minutes including test.
 226 18:55:37 <garyo-home>	Just give it to me.
 227 18:55:40 <GregNoel>	done
 228 18:55:55 <stevenknight>	done
 229 18:56:15 <garyo-home>	(But I'm only going to fix the proximate cause, not whatever Ludwig's patch is about.)
 230 18:56:23 <GregNoel>	Just make sure it still fails if it's a file (or whatnot) that's preventing the creation
 231 18:56:26 <stevenknight>	that works for me
 232 18:56:33 <garyo-home>	Good point, Greg.
 233 18:56:41 <GregNoel>	or file permissions, or anything else.
 234 18:56:52 <garyo-home>	Right, no problem.
 235 18:56:59 <GregNoel>	Ludwig's patch clears the cache when the directory is created
 236 18:57:24 <garyo-home>	Ah, right, so the next Mkdir gets the test right.
 237 18:57:37 <garyo-home>	ok let's move on
 238 18:57:38 <GregNoel>	you mean wrong
 239 18:57:43 <garyo-home>	:-)
 240 18:58:01 <stevenknight>	1253:  
 241 18:58:20 <stevenknight>	greg, did you reproduce with current scons?  or with 0.96.91?
 242 18:58:36 <GregNoel>	current, with the .sconsign he provided
 243 18:58:59 <stevenknight>	ah
 244 18:59:10 <stevenknight>	i'm inclined to either WORKSFORME or RESEARCH, then
 245 18:59:16 <stevenknight>	the .sconsign file would have changed since then
 246 18:59:21 <stevenknight>	so it's not surprising that we can't handle it
 247 18:59:30 <GregNoel>	but we should detect that, yes?
 248 18:59:51 <stevenknight>	we do.  that's why we print the warning
 249 19:00:07 <GregNoel>	Er, I think it's a fatal error now
 250 19:00:08 <stevenknight>	if we didn't detect it, you'd get a stack trace
 251 19:00:43 <GregNoel>	It's been a while, and I'm not positive, but I think it did give a stack trace
 252 19:01:23 <stevenknight>	okay, sounds like research me
 253 19:01:26 <GregNoel>	done
 254 19:01:38 <stevenknight>	note re: making sure it doesn't stack trace
 255 19:01:54 <GregNoel>	done
 256 19:02:28 <GregNoel>	1260
 257 19:02:37 <garyo-home>	1260: probably moot due to recent fortran work
 258 19:02:56 <GregNoel>	Probably, but I think David should check it out
 259 19:03:04 <garyo-home>	David should check, agreed.
 260 19:03:04 <stevenknight>	what greg said
 261 19:03:10 <stevenknight>	research, David?
 262 19:03:16 <GregNoel>	research?
 263 19:03:27 <garyo-home>	ok
 264 19:03:30 <GregNoel>	done
 265 19:03:54 <GregNoel>	1261, whatever you guys decide
 266 19:04:23 <garyo-home>	Interesting.  I hadn't seen that.  Do we have cygwin platform support now?
 267 19:04:35 <stevenknight>	kinda sorta
 268 19:04:49 <stevenknight>	never had a real cygwin expert do a thorough job with it
 269 19:05:11 <stevenknight>	we do have places where we account for cygwin differences
 270 19:05:35 <stevenknight>	(especially its really annoying characteristic of lying about case sensitivity)
 271 19:05:40 <garyo-home>	I don't think there's anything like this patch in tools now, and it looks pretty OK.  I'm inclined to take it seriously.
 272 19:05:46 <stevenknight>	agree
 273 19:06:05 <GregNoel>	(Three years old, remember)
 274 19:06:17 <garyo-home>	It's basically a gcc-lookalike with some tweaks.
 275 19:06:51 <stevenknight>	sounds reasonable
 276 19:06:55 <stevenknight>	i can take it
 277 19:06:56 <garyo-home>	Greg: if we have this in, it'll help us remember what to do on cygwin in the toolchain stuff.
 278 19:07:02 <garyo-home>	Steven: great
 279 19:07:07 <stevenknight>	what time frame?
 280 19:07:11 <garyo-home>	2.x?
 281 19:07:16 <stevenknight>	that sounds right
 282 19:07:17 <garyo-home>	p3?
 283 19:07:21 <stevenknight>	yes
 284 19:07:24 <GregNoel>	done
 285 19:07:27 <stevenknight>	add a cygwin keyword?
 286 19:07:43 <GregNoel>	or 'toolchain'?
 287 19:07:56 <stevenknight>	or both?
 288 19:07:59 <garyo-home>	either or both, ok w/ me
 289 19:08:14 <GregNoel>	Steven, your choice
 290 19:08:25 <stevenknight>	i was thinking both might be handy in case someone tries to tackle cygwin before toolchain (or vice versa)
 291 19:08:36 <GregNoel>	done
 292 19:09:15 <GregNoel>	1263?
 293 19:10:38 <stevenknight>	needs to be reproduced, it's been a while
 294 19:10:42 <stevenknight>	i bet it's been fixed since then
 295 19:11:06 <stevenknight>	better if someone else has time, but i'll take it (research) if no one else can
 296 19:11:43 <GregNoel>	Trivial to reproduce; it's using glob.glob() instead of Glob(), so it's in the "wrong" directory the second time through.
 297 19:12:35 <stevenknight>	ah!
 298 19:12:35 <garyo-home>	That's probably right...
 299 19:12:44 <garyo-home>	(actually os.listdir, but same thing)
 300 19:12:51 <stevenknight>	close it out, then, with reference to Glob() ?
 301 19:13:14 <GregNoel>	yup, that's what I said in the spreadsheet...
 302 19:13:16 <garyo-home>	I think so.  OP can reopen if desired (ok, it's 3 yrs old, they won't...)
 303 19:13:35 <GregNoel>	done
 304 19:13:46 <GregNoel>	1268
 305 19:14:08 <stevenknight>	ah, okay, i stopped scrolling down on the spreadsheet
 306 19:14:09 <stevenknight>	1268:
 307 19:14:36 <stevenknight>	agree w/greg:  research, Jim
 308 19:15:07 <garyo-home>	ok, but my quick look says this patch couldn't hurt.
 309 19:15:23 <jtc>	gotta go folks; I'll try to make the next bug party ...
 310 19:15:30 <GregNoel>	Let Jim decide
 311 19:15:32 <garyo-home>	thanks, J.T.!
 312 19:15:35 <stevenknight>	thanks, jtc
 313 19:15:38 <GregNoel>	We'll look for you
 314 19:15:43 <GregNoel>	the more the merrier!
 315 19:16:12 <garyo-home>	re: let jim decide, ok.
 316 19:16:36 <GregNoel>	done
 317 19:16:56 *	jtc has quit ("Quit")
 318 19:17:30 <GregNoel>	1276
 319 19:17:49 <stevenknight>	1276:  kind of hairy and architectural
 320 19:17:57 <stevenknight>	i'm probably the logical assignee, unless someone else wants it
 321 19:17:59 <garyo-home>	1276: I guess Greg's ssheet comment is right.
 322 19:18:00 <stevenknight>	agree w/future
 323 19:18:03 <garyo-home>	future.
 324 19:18:12 <GregNoel>	what priority?
 325 19:18:25 <stevenknight>	p2 sounds right
 326 19:18:32 <GregNoel>	done
 327 19:18:33 <stevenknight>	shorter sk:  agree w/greg  :-)
 328 19:19:31 <GregNoel>	Huh?  Where did I say that?
 329 19:19:47 <stevenknight>	no, i was poking fun at myself
 330 19:20:03 <stevenknight>	the summary of my previous long-windedness was:  I agree w/greg
 331 19:20:19 <GregNoel>	ah
 332 19:20:33 <stevenknight>	1281:  
 333 19:20:56 <stevenknight>	agree we need a Java guru
 334 19:21:20 <GregNoel>	I had no clue with this one, and re-reading it, I still don't
 335 19:21:24 <stevenknight>	if we had one, what priority / timeframe
 336 19:21:35 <stevenknight>	arbitrary:  2.x p3 ?
 337 19:21:42 <garyo-home>	whatever
 338 19:21:58 <stevenknight>	that lets us defer until 1) someone pops up; 2) we get to it eventually
 339 19:21:58 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll go with that
 340 19:22:31 <garyo-home>	1282: is dup of 1268
 341 19:22:41 <garyo-home>	sorry I mean 12385 is dup
 342 19:22:51 <GregNoel>	keep trying
 343 19:22:56 <garyo-home>	sorry, 3rd try: 1285 is dup of 1268
 344 19:23:01 <garyo-home>	yes, that one was right.
 345 19:23:04 <garyo-home>	:-)
 346 19:23:31 <stevenknight>	okay, dup 1268
 347 19:23:40 <GregNoel>	done
 348 19:23:43 <garyo-home>	I just marked it as dup.
 349 19:24:50 <garyo-home>	1287:
 350 19:25:10 <stevenknight>	yow, patch that's been hanging around way too long
 351 19:25:17 <garyo-home>	I think copying the attributes is the right idea.
 352 19:25:25 <stevenknight>	yeah, sounds exactly right
 353 19:25:32 <stevenknight>	shouldn't be too hard to cook up a test case
 354 19:25:43 <stevenknight>	give it to me, p2, 1.2 or 1.x
 355 19:25:44 <stevenknight>	?
 356 19:25:53 <GregNoel>	your choice
 357 19:25:57 <garyo-home>	your choice
 358 19:26:17 <stevenknight>	1.2
 359 19:26:18 <GregNoel>	done
 360 19:26:48 <GregNoel>	1290
 361 19:26:48 <garyo-home>	1290: I think scons used to write the .sconsign incrementally
 362 19:26:58 <garyo-home>	maybe it does again now?
 363 19:27:22 <garyo-home>	Anyway we are better about signal handling so it rarely fails to update the .sconsign
 364 19:27:36 <stevenknight>	yeah, i think we could WONTFIX it
 365 19:27:37 <garyo-home>	I think it's invalid due to better signal handling now
 366 19:27:45 <garyo-home>	WONTFIX is ok
 367 19:27:48 <GregNoel>	done
 368 19:27:52 <stevenknight>	done
 369 19:28:00 <stevenknight>	1293:
 370 19:28:05 <GregNoel>	1293
 371 19:28:41 <stevenknight>	probably research, me again... :-/
 372 19:28:57 <garyo-home>	or me, at least I could try to repro it quickly
 373 19:29:07 <garyo-home>	I have a D drive
 374 19:29:23 <stevenknight>	garyo, go for it
 375 19:29:41 <garyo-home>	ok
 376 19:29:44 <GregNoel>	done (Steven has too many research issues anyway)
 377 19:29:53 <stevenknight>	agreed
 378 19:29:59 <GregNoel>	1211
 379 19:30:11 <GregNoel>	(and this is the last one in this spreadsheet)
 380 19:30:28 <stevenknight>	(yay!)
 381 19:30:52 <stevenknight>	old, seems to be fixed, don't spend time on it, just WORKSFORME and invite re-opening if that's hasty
 382 19:31:05 <garyo-home>	agree w/ both of you.
 383 19:31:06 <GregNoel>	worksforme!
 384 19:31:34 <stevenknight>	excellent work tonight, gents
 385 19:31:39 <garyo-home>	yes
 386 19:31:41 <GregNoel>	OK, we've settled on 17h00 in two weeks?
 387 19:31:50 <stevenknight>	18h30 ?
 388 19:31:54 <GregNoel>	oops, 17h30?
 389 19:32:08 <garyo-home>	I think it was 18h30 PDT
 390 19:32:10 <stevenknight>	18h30 ?
 391 19:32:56 <GregNoel>	Uh, I'll have to scroll back, ah, ok, I was arguing for 17h30, but I guess I kept mistyping it
 392 19:32:58 *	jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1096624847.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #scons
 393 19:33:03 <GregNoel>	Hi, Jim
 394 19:33:14 <garyo-home>	ok, see you then guys.  Hi, Jim!
 395 19:33:30 <GregNoel>	We assigned you a bunch of issues, Jim
 396 19:33:32 <jrandall>	hello - I seem to be somewhat late to the party
 397 19:33:37 <stevenknight>	okay, see you later, gary
 398 19:33:41 <GregNoel>	Yes, just ending
 399 19:33:43 <garyo-home>	l8r
 400 19:33:48 <stevenknight>	hey jim -- better late than never, though
 401 19:33:49 <GregNoel>	g'night
 402 19:34:31 <jrandall>	I'll check the log for the summary.  More quoting stuff?
 403 19:34:38 <stevenknight>	yep
 404 19:35:17 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.3/2008092417]")
 405 19:35:38 <GregNoel>	And there's a comment in the spreadsheet about a possible strategy to deal with quoting
 406 19:35:52 <jrandall>	Nice - I'll check that out right now
 407 19:36:23 <jrandall>	Current issues sheet?
 408 19:37:14 <GregNoel>	no, 2005h2 issue 1268
 409 19:37:20 <jrandall>	Is the intent of scons to expose the host quoting scheme?
 410 19:37:39 <GregNoel>	I'd argue not
 411 19:38:02 <GregNoel>	in fact, I'd suggest using shlex to crack incoming strings
 412 19:39:12 <jrandall>	The "quoting model" was kind of the fundamental question I ran into.
 413 19:39:20 <jrandall>	And was unable to decide which I'd prefer. 
 414 19:39:47 <jrandall>	The "host quoting scheme" seemed to be what I'd naturally assume, but that's tough on the project independance
 415 19:40:44 <GregNoel>	Yes, but there are so many incompatible schemes on DOS, so I'd prefer to pick one that's consistent and just go with it
 416 19:41:13 <GregNoel>	not to mention that Python has built-in support for Bourne-style shell quoting
 417 19:42:25 <jrandall>	So suggestion would be to use bourne-style shell quoting for all scons commands?
 418 19:42:47 <jrandall>	or one scheme, whatever it may be, on all host platforms?
 419 19:43:32 <GregNoel>	we do something similar for ParseConfig; the input is assumed to be GNU-style flags, which are placed in the right variables so they're usually "translated" to the native format
 420 19:44:27 <GregNoel>	not sure I understand your distinction between SCons commands and one scheme for all
 421 19:45:06 <jrandall>	wasn't trying to distinguish - rather tired, and not speaking well :)
 422 19:46:23 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I understand that---I've been getting up at 2am (PDT) the past few days, so this is well past my bedtime...
 423 19:46:24 <jrandall>	two approaches seem to be "crack into tokens, we control the quoting",  or  "foist quoting onto the host platform, never try to bust up strings"
 424 19:46:36 <jrandall>	That's a bit on the early side :)
 425 19:47:11 <jrandall>	The latter seems less fraught with peril, and probably more compatible with existing practice, but not as nice cross-platform
 426 19:47:50 <GregNoel>	It's a long story, but the short is that it's 110+ during the days right now, so we agreed that our contractors could get here at a ghastly hour to start work.
 427 19:48:13 <jrandall>	ouch.
 428 19:48:36 <jrandall>	I'm not sure exactly what 110+ translates to in celsius, but I'm pretty sure it's damn hot :)
 429 19:49:17 <GregNoel>	"less fraught with peril" is my motivation.  I think consistent and predictable is the win here.
 430 19:49:52 <GregNoel>	over 44 degrees
 431 19:50:29 <jrandall>	Aye.   There seems to be an endless supply of quoting issues.   As per the comment on 1268, that pretty much summarizes what needs to be able to be done if subst_list is oging to work
 432 19:50:56 <jrandall>	and if we can't crack into a list of tokens like that, then almost have to not rely on subst_list
 433 19:50:59 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I saw your comment about that, but I haven't looked at it yet
 434 19:51:46 <jrandall>	Part of while tempfilemunge is such a bug magnet is that it's built on subst_list, which likes to bust strings on spaces.
 435 19:52:46 <jrandall>	so it either has to be able to understand quoting or not be used in tempfilemunge.   Some other quoting problems in a similar vein
 436 19:53:21 <jrandall>	it == subst_list in previous sentence :)
 437 19:53:50 <GregNoel>	ambiguity, thy name is pronoun...
 438 19:55:57 <GregNoel>	Anyway, it looks like I have to go; can you drop me a line about this?  I'd like to see if we can come up with a spec to describe it, particularly as we make the move to subprocess, which will make all of the quoting issues go critical again.
 439 19:56:19 <jrandall>	Sure thing.  see you
 440 19:57:19 <GregNoel>	(Subprocess takes a list of strings, which are assumed to be pre-quoted, and figures out how to get them run.  If we can figure out how to create that list of strings, we win big.)
 441 19:57:34 <GregNoel>	Yes, the wife is calling...  cul.
 442 19:57:46 <jrandall>	Hrm, a good reason to stick with the list approach.
 443 19:57:47 <jrandall>	see you.
 444 19:58:39 *	jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1096624847.dsl.bell.ca) has left #scons
 445 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-10-15 (last edited 2008-10-20 08:16:41 by ip68-7-77-81)