1 17:29:34 *	sgk_ (n=stevenkn@67.218.110.27) has joined #scons
   2 17:31:20 <sgk_>	hey greg
   3 17:31:39 <Greg_Noel>	Hi, Steven.
   4 17:32:55 <sgk_>	wiki down in general, or is it just me?
   5 17:33:20 <Greg_Noel>	Not just you.
   6 17:33:21 <Hydrant>	I noticed that too
   7 17:33:45 <sgk_>	damn, i've grown dependent on the links in the BugParty page
   8 17:34:19 <Greg_Noel>	I can post some...
   9 17:34:27 <sgk_>	thanks, that'd help
  10 17:34:37 <sgk_>	i've had no chance to pre-review, unfortunately... :-(
  11 17:35:17 <sgk_>	is there anything i can/should look at over at pair.com w.r.t. trying to resurrect the wiki?
  12 17:35:34 <sgk_>	(says the complete novice...)
  13 17:35:51 <Greg_Noel>	Dunno.  I was wondering if Gary did something.
  14 17:36:07 <Greg_Noel>	(The spreadsheet is http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p1VsJ6ACdIhAs91YGwSnBYw&hl=en)
  15 17:37:02 <Greg_Noel>	Sohail, you here for the bug party?
  16 17:37:33 <sgk_>	Greg_Noel:  thanks, starting in
  17 17:40:24 <sgk_>	1910:  me, research
  18 17:40:27 <sgk_>	figure out if it's a real bug
  19 17:40:31 <Greg_Noel>	concur
  20 17:40:48 <sgk_>	(yeah, I know, we don't quite have a quorum, but what the hey...)
  21 17:41:00 <sohail>	Greg_Noel, no, just hanging out sorry
  22 17:41:14 <Greg_Noel>	(Maybe Gary will show up eventually)
  23 17:41:39 <Greg_Noel>	sohail, if you have an opinion, don't hesitate to speak up.
  24 17:42:21 <sohail>	Greg_Noel, will do
  25 17:43:31 <sgk_>	2249:  weird weird weird
  26 17:43:36 <sgk_>	needs some research
  27 17:43:47 <Greg_Noel>	yeah, for sure
  28 17:43:47 <sgk_>	smells like a possible drive letter issue to me
  29 17:43:47 <Greg_Noel>	I hadn't thought of drive letters.
  30 17:44:41 <sgk_>	put my name on 2249 too
  31 17:44:52 <sgk_>	i'm actually buried in other Windows stuff now anyway
  32 17:44:55 <Greg_Noel>	ok, done.  I'm glad it's not me!
  33 17:45:40 <sgk_>	:-)
  34 17:46:05 *	sgk_ curses the network lag on the shuttle...
  35 17:48:10 <sgk_>	2084:  looks to me like a future thing (2.x or later) and not terribly high priority
  36 17:48:18 <sgk_>	David has a workaround for his situation
  37 17:48:25 <sgk_>	and no one else has been beating down the doors for it
  38 17:48:55 <Greg_Noel>	Priority?
  39 17:49:54 <sgk_>	p4 works for me
  40 17:49:57 <Greg_Noel>	2084, future, draft pick, p4, done
  41 17:50:36 <sgk_>	2190:  would this be easy to drop into the current framework?
  42 17:51:35 <Greg_Noel>	No worse than many others.  Is the short-term tradeoff worth the time we could spend on a replacement?
  43 17:51:54 <Greg_Noel>	And there are workarounds.
  44 17:51:55 <sgk_>	yeah, probably not
  45 17:52:13 <sgk_>	future, mark it with some keyword for Configure replacement
  46 17:52:21 <Greg_Noel>	works for me
  47 17:52:29 <sgk_>	i.e., agree w/Greg  :-)
  48 17:52:55 <Greg_Noel>	Any ideas for a keyword?
  49 17:53:10 <sgk_>	configure ?
  50 17:53:49 <Greg_Noel>	I'd rather not; too vague; could be something for existing configure.
  51 17:53:59 <sgk_>	good point
  52 17:54:18 <Greg_Noel>	Oh, and a priority is needed
  53 17:54:34 <sgk_>	p4 since there are workarounds
  54 17:54:38 <sgk_>	or p3
  55 17:54:08 <sgk_>	configure_revamp ?
  56 17:55:00 <Greg_Noel>	Longish.  I'd go for something like ConfigNG first.
  57 17:55:34 <Greg_Noel>	p3 works for me for now.  I'd like to see it sooner, but there's so much to do.
  58 17:55:57 <sgk_>	right
  59 17:56:38 <sgk_>	2190:  future, p3, +configure_revamp Keyword
  60 17:56:46 <Greg_Noel>	done
  61 17:57:08 <sgk_>	2196:  agree with both Russel and you in principle
  62 17:57:16 <sgk_>	but it's a big architectural change
  63 17:57:30 <Greg_Noel>	Yeah, that's why I think future.
  64 17:57:37 <sgk_>	agree w/future
  65 17:58:12 <Greg_Noel>	On the other hand, there are some features in Python 2.2 that may help, so I could be convinced otherwise.
  66 17:58:00 <sgk_>	I'm working in the background on a list of big architectural changes to tackle in 2009
  67 17:58:12 <sgk_>	e.g. DAG with real edge objects
  68 17:58:27 <Greg_Noel>	Hmm...
  69 17:58:57 <Greg_Noel>	Why would you need the arcs articulated?
  70 17:59:01 <sgk_>	i still say future, with the intent of discussing it at a prioritization session for big architecture work
  71 17:59:14 <Greg_Noel>	so, needs a keyword
  72 17:59:22 <sgk_>	right
  73 17:59:37 <sgk_>	"architecture" or "arch_revamp" ?
  74 17:59:48 <Greg_Noel>	rearchitecture?
  75 17:59:53 <sgk_>	+1
  76 18:00:15 <Greg_Noel>	so future, p2, done
  77 18:00:20 <sgk_>	done
  78 18:00:23 <sgk_>	re: DAG edges
  79 18:00:41 <sgk_>	one, i've finally caught up with your good advice about being able to do independent topo sorts and the like
  80 18:00:56 <sgk_>	more immediate and practically, i'd like to be able to walk the DAG in the other direction
  81 18:01:04 <sgk_>	i think that would help developer builds
  82 18:01:30 <sgk_>	because you could say "I know foo.c is the only thing that changed, build just its targets"
  83 18:01:37 <Greg_Noel>	It's possible to build the transverse graph as you go, but it's slower.
  84 18:01:57 <sgk_>	but you'd have to walk it to do so, yes?
  85 18:02:27 <sgk_>	maybe i'm naively assuming that separating the edges
  86 18:02:46 <sgk_>	would provide benefit from being able to use more sophisticated algorithms
  87 18:03:12 <sgk_>	than our current tweaked-into-behaving-kinda-how-we-want walk
  88 18:04:31 <Greg_Noel>	I can agree with that, but building the transverse graph is cheap relative to what else you have to do.  It's probably not a lot different than building it as you go.
  89 18:05:47 <Greg_Noel>	And you still have to be able to create arcs for implicit dependencies, so the targets of foo.h may not be known until you walk up.
  90 18:04:40 <sgk_>	okay
  91 18:04:52 <sgk_>	gary just fixed the wiki -- deprecation warnings
  92 18:05:00 <sgk_>	sent email that he won't be able to make it
  93 18:05:40 <sgk_>	onward?
  94 18:05:54 <Greg_Noel>	yeah
  95 18:07:06 <sgk_>	2261:  2.x p3
  96 18:07:50 <Greg_Noel>	BTW, disclaimer for this evening: We've had almost four inches of rain in the last couple of days, and the local power grid seems to be unstable.  We've had three power trips today, all short enough so that the only thing that rebooted was our firewall, but if I suddenly stop, figure that I've lost power.
  97 18:08:14 <sgk_>	Greg_Noel:  okay, thanks for the heads up
  98 18:08:19 <sgk_>	good luck...
  99 18:07:59 <sgk_>	mpcomplete is a googler whose initials are "MP"
 100 18:09:33 <Greg_Noel>	Tell him he needs to change his name: MP-complete has been demonstrated to be NP-hard.
 101 18:09:51 <sgk_>	:-)
 102 18:10:23 <sgk_>	2268:  2.x p3 draft pick
 103 18:10:31 <Greg_Noel>	2261, okay.
 104 18:11:20 <Greg_Noel>	2268, ok, may need to revisit.
 105 18:11:57 <Greg_Noel>	Agree that stack trace is not a good thing.
 106 18:12:39 <sgk_>	2269:  agree, wontfix
 107 18:12:44 <Greg_Noel>	done
 108 18:12:56 <sgk_>	probably should document the API if we expect him to reach into the Executor, though
 109 18:13:45 <Greg_Noel>	str(Executor) probably gets him what he wants; I'd rather not tie down the API
 110 18:14:31 <sgk_>	Greg_Noel:  good
 111 18:14:35 <sgk_>	i like it
 112 18:14:56 <sgk_>	2270:  me, 2.x, VisualStudio keyword
 113 18:15:01 <sgk_>	actually, 1.3
 114 18:15:08 <sgk_>	i'm integrating vs_revamp
 115 18:15:34 <sgk_>	i don't think this part is affected by that, but i'll double check and do the right thing
 116 18:15:49 <Greg_Noel>	ok, more issues for you to resolve.
 117 18:15:55 <sgk_>	(or maybe vs_revamp keyword...?  whatever's appropriate)
 118 18:16:50 <Greg_Noel>	Probably vs_revamp, but I don't know the distinction.
 119 18:17:13 <sgk_>	either way
 120 18:17:10 <Greg_Noel>	Priority?
 121 18:17:15 <sgk_>	p3
 122 18:17:23 <Greg_Noel>	done
 123 18:17:56 <sgk_>	2270:  me, 1.3, p3
 124 18:18:04 <sgk_>	part of integrating again
 125 18:18:15 <sgk_>	sorry
 126 18:18:19 <Greg_Noel>	good; not me
 127 18:18:20 <sgk_>	2271:  me, 1.3, p3
 128 18:18:31 <Greg_Noel>	right
 129 18:20:03 <sgk_>	2272:  ouch
 130 18:20:18 <Greg_Noel>	you got that right.
 131 18:20:29 <sgk_>	good analysis
 132 18:20:42 <Greg_Noel>	yeah, we should recruit him
 133 18:20:55 <sgk_>	good idea
 134 18:21:21 <sgk_>	2.x p3 draft choice
 135 18:21:28 <sgk_>	and see if we can sign him up as the draft choice?
 136 18:22:04 <Greg_Noel>	ok, with some reference to TaskmasterNG, that may complicate this even further.
 137 18:22:15 <sgk_>	right
 138 18:23:00 <sgk_>	2273:
 139 18:23:20 <sgk_>	anytime, anyone
 140 18:23:42 <Greg_Noel>	anytime only works if there's someone assigned
 141 18:23:56 <sgk_>	good point
 142 18:24:06 <Greg_Noel>	I think we should put out a RFE
 143 18:24:15 <sgk_>	E == editor?
 144 18:24:16 <Greg_Noel>	Request For Editor
 145 18:24:16 <sgk_>	concur
 146 18:24:46 <sgk_>	2273:  anytime, Greg_Noel?
 147 18:25:08 <Greg_Noel>	It's DOS, so I'd probably botch it.
 148 18:25:15 <sgk_>	okay
 149 18:25:20 <sgk_>	2273:  anytime, stevenknight
 150 18:25:47 <Greg_Noel>	maybe we should give it to Gary as punishment for not being here. {;-}
 151 18:25:55 <sgk_>	i LIKE it... :-)
 152 18:26:17 <Greg_Noel>	done
 153 18:26:15 <sgk_>	~5 minutes to bus stop
 154 18:26:40 <Greg_Noel>	Too bad; I had some other things I wanted to discuss.
 155 18:26:41 <sgk_>	2274:  1.x p3, see if arve comes up with the patch he mentions
 156 18:27:16 <Greg_Noel>	Maybe we should see if Gary&others could handle a special meeting?
 157 18:28:05 <Greg_Noel>	2274, ok
 158 18:28:13 <sgk_>	yes re: special meeting
 159 18:28:24 <sgk_>	2275:  2.x p3 stevenknight +VisualStudio keyword
 160 18:28:38 <sgk_>	if not part of vs_revamp, part of other stuff I'm working on for Google Chrome
 161 18:28:55 <Greg_Noel>	Looks like #ERROR! to me... {;-}
 162 18:29:09 <Greg_Noel>	2275, done
 163 18:29:32 <Greg_Noel>	(put a space in front of the plus)
 164 18:29:55 <sgk_>	2276:  stevenknight
 165 18:30:01 <sgk_>	yeah, i thought i fixed it already
 166 18:30:39 <sgk_>	2277:  stevenknight +VisualStudio
 167 18:30:47 <sgk_>	last minute or so
 168 18:31:01 <Greg_Noel>	2276, okay, I'll presume you'll close it.
 169 18:32:12 <sgk_>	2276:  i'll close
 170 18:31:10 <Greg_Noel>	2277, done
 171 18:32:18 <sgk_>	2278:  recruit swig guru
 172 18:32:19 <Greg_Noel>	2278 can wait, but I think I'll contact him and see if he can be recruited.
 173 18:32:25 <sgk_>	+1
 174 18:32:47 <sgk_>	okay, gotta go
 175 18:32:47 <Greg_Noel>	Surprisingly, that's all
 176 18:32:55 <sgk_>	many thanks for the work
 177 18:33:01 <Greg_Noel>	I'll drop a line about another meeting; cul
 178 18:33:15 <sgk_>	l8r
 179 18:33:17 *	sgk_ has quit ("Leaving")
 180 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-12-17 (last edited 2008-12-18 07:05:01 by ip68-7-77-81)