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
