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 17:16:22 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
   2 17:25:49 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@67.218.109.115) has joined #scons
   3 17:26:06 <stevenknight>	hey nait
   4 17:27:16 <stevenknight>	hey GregNoel
   5 17:29:29 <nait>	Unfortunately, I needed to get a ride home today, so I'm going to miss the bug party.  I'll try to be around at 8:30 for discussions about fixers and 2.0
   6 17:30:08 <stevenknight>	okay
   7 17:30:19 <GregNoel>	I'm here...
   8 17:30:23 <stevenknight>	i may not be able to connect then
   9 17:30:31 <stevenknight>	looks like a lot going on this evening...
  10 17:31:20 <stevenknight>	hi greg
  11 17:31:24 <GregNoel>	Fair warning: I seem to have caught the bug that the kids have been passing around, so I'm a bit under the weather and liable to be slow tonight.
  12 17:31:32 <stevenknight>	okay
  13 17:31:37 <stevenknight>	shall we get started then?
  14 17:31:41 <GregNoel>	Hi, Steven... and Nate?
  15 17:31:54 <stevenknight>	nait's here for now but has to leave
  16 17:32:09 <stevenknight>	no sign of Brandon or Bill
  17 17:32:13 <stevenknight>	and Gary's still on vacation
  18 17:32:38 <GregNoel>	So a bit on the thin side.
  19 17:32:44 <stevenknight>	yeah
  20 17:32:58 <stevenknight>	but we can still do what we can
  21 17:33:04 <GregNoel>	yup
  22 17:33:06 <stevenknight>	and defer as necessary
  23 17:33:17 <GregNoel>	yup
  24 17:33:05 <nait>	Yeah, sorry.  I don't have a car today, so I'm at the whim of my co-worker.
  25 17:33:20 <stevenknight>	nait: understood, been there myself
  26 17:33:38 <stevenknight>	so where did we leave off?
  27 17:33:38 <GregNoel>	I think 2288 is next; we hadn't finished with it.
  28 17:33:49 <stevenknight>	right
  29 17:34:10 <stevenknight>	oh, I thought we agreed right before the end to defer 2288 to next week
  30 17:34:12 <stevenknight>	and close 2289
  31 17:34:35 <GregNoel>	I thought we said "next time" but I'm willing to bypass it.
  32 17:34:47 <GregNoel>	I'll ask for more info
  33 17:34:50 <stevenknight>	right, meant "next time"
  34 17:34:57 <stevenknight>	okay, done
  35 17:35:22 <stevenknight>	2303:  research, me?
  36 17:35:24 <GregNoel>	2303, I seem to be collecting the symlink issues
  37 17:35:39 <GregNoel>	but you're welcome to research it {;-}
  38 17:35:41 <stevenknight>	er, I meant, research, gregnoel?
  39 17:35:44 <stevenknight>	:-)
  40 17:35:57 <stevenknight>	sorry, it's this frog in my throat... :-)
  41 17:36:11 <GregNoel>	It can't be worse than mine.
  42 17:36:34 <stevenknight>	if you have other symlink issues then it probably does make more sense with you
  43 17:36:55 <GregNoel>	This isn't the same as the other issues, which are related to making a symlink a first-class node type
  44 17:37:15 <stevenknight>	seems like it'd be in the same ballpark, though
  45 17:37:32 <stevenknight>	if the FS.* hierarchy is going to understand symlinks anyway
  46 17:37:45 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll research it, but I suspect I'll be tossing it back.
  47 17:37:45 <stevenknight>	i'm okay with it being your call, though
  48 17:37:51 <GregNoel>	done
  49 17:37:52 <stevenknight>	that's fine
  50 17:37:53 <stevenknight>	done
  51 17:37:59 <stevenknight>	2304:  research, me?
  52 17:38:33 <GregNoel>	OK, but you've got to start catching up on those (as do I with mine)
  53 17:38:43 <stevenknight>	yep, i agree
  54 17:39:04 <stevenknight>	i'm going to try to make it a priority after landing vs_revamp on the trunk
  55 17:39:20 <stevenknight>	i have to remember that the idea isn't necessarily to solve them all
  56 17:39:28 <stevenknight>	but at least characterize them enough to slot them elsewhere...
  57 17:39:41 <GregNoel>	2306, sigh, I'll come up with a proposal
  58 17:39:41 <stevenknight>	anyway
  59 17:39:45 <stevenknight>	2304:  research, sgk
  60 17:39:46 <stevenknight>	done
  61 17:39:46 <GregNoel>	yes, exactly
  62 17:39:51 <stevenknight>	2306:  research, gregnoel
  63 17:39:58 <stevenknight>	done
  64 17:39:58 <GregNoel>	done
  65 17:40:18 <GregNoel>	2309, as you request
  66 17:40:27 <stevenknight>	2309:  1.3, p2, sk, +vs_revamp
  67 17:40:28 <stevenknight>	done
  68 17:40:51 <stevenknight>	2311
  69 17:41:07 <GregNoel>	the only one with a consensus...
  70 17:41:12 <stevenknight>	to do this one right has larger implications about making the Builder (or action) configurable
  71 17:41:47 <stevenknight>	2.x p2 feels right
  72 17:42:01 <GregNoel>	I'd think it would always be rebuilt if a source changes; when would it not?
  73 17:42:03 <stevenknight>	are we still okay leaving 2.x issues as TBD / future draft pick?
  74 17:42:31 <stevenknight>	trivial case:  your target is built by just concatenating the sources
  75 17:42:33 <GregNoel>	not 2.x p2; too soon in the future
  76 17:42:40 <stevenknight>	you don't care about the name change then
  77 17:42:57 <stevenknight>	but you could argue that we should go ahead and rebuild anyway
  78 17:43:19 <stevenknight>	on the theory that it's generally safer, and we don't need the extra complexity for the corner case
  79 17:43:07 <GregNoel>	Yes, you do; the source could have different contents; that's the bug here.
  80 17:43:27 <stevenknight>	no, the source has the same contents
  81 17:43:37 <stevenknight>	if the contents are different, then the MD5 checksum difference triggers a rebuild
  82 17:43:42 <GregNoel>	Not what the bug said, as I recall.
  83 17:44:25 <stevenknight>	checking now;...
  84 17:44:27 <stevenknight>	but I doubt it
  85 17:45:19 <stevenknight>	ouch, you're right
  86 17:45:20 <stevenknight>	as usual
  87 17:45:26 <GregNoel>	{;-}
  88 17:45:51 <GregNoel>	The bug is probably that it's checking the _old_ source, rather than the new one.
  89 17:47:40 <stevenknight>	ah, yes
  90 17:47:48 <stevenknight>	very likely
  91 17:47:53 <stevenknight>	okay, give it to me
  92 17:47:57 <GregNoel>	done
  93 17:49:01 <stevenknight>	2312:  2.x p3 managan
  94 17:48:38 <GregNoel>	2312, I agree.
  95 17:49:02 <stevenknight>	done
  96 17:49:03 <GregNoel>	2311, I wish I had some of those drugs right now
  97 17:49:41 <stevenknight>	2313:  defer to next time and hope someone else comes up with a better idea for tackling packaging issues?
  98 17:50:02 <GregNoel>	2312, I'm inclined to close it as invalid: we only support one package per run right now
  99 17:50:08 <stevenknight>	ah
 100 17:50:28 <GregNoel>	or wontfix
 101 17:50:25 <stevenknight>	how about just turn it into a feature request, then?
 102 17:50:45 <GregNoel>	feature request, hmmm, yeah, makes sense
 103 17:50:57 <stevenknight>	a packaging system that can't let you build more than one at a time seems pretty limited
 104 17:51:22 <stevenknight>	so...  feature request, 3.x p3?
 105 17:51:38 <GregNoel>	yeah, sounds right.
 106 17:51:39 <stevenknight>	and an invitation to scratch the itch sooner if he wants to contribute a patch
 107 17:51:47 <GregNoel>	good point
 108 17:52:24 <stevenknight>	done
 109 17:52:35 <GregNoel>	2338, 2.1 p4 is fine
 110 17:52:45 <stevenknight>	done
 111 17:52:46 <GregNoel>	2339, ditto
 112 17:52:50 <stevenknight>	done
 113 17:52:52 <stevenknight>	gregnoel on both?
 114 17:53:16 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...
 115 17:53:24 <GregNoel>	Nate, you still here?
 116 17:54:07 <GregNoel>	Nate has been working with me on the fixers; this might be in his ballpark
 117 17:54:13 <stevenknight>	that sounds good
 118 17:54:51 <GregNoel>	Not to mention I suspect I'll be zoned out when 2.0 is out after supervising all those fixers.
 119 17:54:25 <stevenknight>	how about putting his name on and you guys can negotiate if that's not okay with him
 120 17:54:56 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I'll do that.
 121 17:55:07 <stevenknight>	right re: zoned out
 122 17:55:34 <stevenknight>	okay, 2338+2339:  2.1 p4 Nate
 123 17:55:35 <stevenknight>	done
 124 17:55:41 <stevenknight>	2346:  consensus invalid
 125 17:55:53 <GregNoel>	2346, done
 126 17:56:15 <stevenknight>	2347:  ...
 127 17:56:17 <GregNoel>	2347, sk to follow up?
 128 17:56:23 <stevenknight>	2.x p3 sk
 129 17:56:30 <stevenknight>	no
 130 17:56:31 <GregNoel>	done
 131 17:56:32 <stevenknight>	research p3 sk
 132 17:56:37 <stevenknight>	so i'll follow up sooner
 133 17:56:52 <GregNoel>	better; I agree
 134 17:56:56 <stevenknight>	done
 135 17:57:08 <stevenknight>	2349:  anytime p4 gregnoel?
 136 17:57:16 <GregNoel>	2349, I guess that's what I get...
 137 17:57:22 <stevenknight>	:-)
 138 17:57:34 <GregNoel>	OK, but make it p2
 139 17:57:42 <stevenknight>	okay
 140 17:57:48 <GregNoel>	get it out of the way
 141 17:57:52 <stevenknight>	good point
 142 17:57:53 <stevenknight>	done
 143 17:57:57 <stevenknight>	on to 2004h2?
 144 17:58:22 <GregNoel>	Wow, you updated the spreadsheet that quickly; I can't even navigate today...
 145 17:58:54 <stevenknight>	small advantage of the laptop, the touchpad keeps the fingers closer to home row...
 146 17:59:12 <GregNoel>	No quorum for schedule items, so yeah, let's look at a few from 2004
 147 17:59:37 <stevenknight>	851:  too old to mess with, invalid (or worksforme)
 148 18:00:03 <GregNoel>	worksforme worksforme
 149 18:00:07 <stevenknight>	:-)
 150 18:00:11 <stevenknight>	done
 151 18:00:14 <stevenknight>	860:  already closed
 152 18:00:16 <stevenknight>	863:
 153 18:00:34 <stevenknight>	agree w/your suggestion of dup'ing these
 154 18:00:45 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll do it
 155 18:00:52 <GregNoel>	not tonight, though..
 156 18:01:01 <stevenknight>	the survivor should be p2 so it stays near top of list, i think
 157 18:01:05 <stevenknight>	agreed re: not tonight
 158 18:01:24 <stevenknight>	914:  research
 159 18:01:27 <stevenknight>	maybe me
 160 18:01:37 <stevenknight>	fresh eyes would help
 161 18:01:49 <stevenknight>	but I don't know if anyone else has an itch to scratch re: collecting test results
 162 18:02:00 <stevenknight>	it's been somewhat superceded by going with Buildbot
 163 18:02:14 <GregNoel>	somewhat
 164 18:03:04 <GregNoel>	Buildbot is nice, but I find it limiting; I've wanted to fiddle with it, but I don't have the most-recent stuff
 165 18:02:39 <stevenknight>	yeah, research sk is the right call here
 166 18:03:29 <GregNoel>	914, research is good; close it if it's no help any more
 167 18:03:32 <stevenknight>	we should chat about Buildbot plans some other time (when you're more up to it)
 168 18:03:39 <GregNoel>	concur
 169 18:03:42 <stevenknight>	we're probably going to be doing some buildbot work for the day job
 170 18:03:59 <stevenknight>	would be nice to do things that benefit us too
 171 18:04:11 <GregNoel>	true
 172 18:04:01 <stevenknight>	anyway
 173 18:04:13 <stevenknight>	923:  1.3 p3 sk +vs_revamp
 174 18:04:52 <GregNoel>	923, done
 175 18:04:37 <GregNoel>	and don't forget the new Python support systems; they could run buildbots
 176 18:04:59 <stevenknight>	snakebite or whatever it's called?
 177 18:05:08 <GregNoel>	yeah, that's it.
 178 18:05:24 <stevenknight>	yeah, definitely worth keeping in mind
 179 18:05:38 <stevenknight>	especially if it helps with Windows and non-POSIXy platforms
 180 18:05:44 <stevenknight>	924:  already closed
 181 18:05:57 <stevenknight>	939:  already closed
 182 18:06:06 <GregNoel>	947, needs to be someone with a DOS box
 183 18:06:12 <GregNoel>	Maybe Gary?
 184 18:06:34 <stevenknight>	is it high enough priority?
 185 18:06:40 <stevenknight>	since his time is limited..
 186 18:06:54 <stevenknight>	sure
 187 18:06:58 <stevenknight>	let's assign to gary
 188 18:07:12 <stevenknight>	and invite negotiation if he wants to throw it back
 189 18:07:24 <GregNoel>	good; milestone and priority?
 190 18:07:31 <stevenknight>	anytime, p2?
 191 18:07:35 <stevenknight>	p2 to get it out of the way
 192 18:07:44 <GregNoel>	done {;-}
 193 18:08:01 <stevenknight>	done
 194 18:08:13 <stevenknight>	960:  3.x p[34]?
 195 18:08:19 <stevenknight>	do we want a separate doc issue, too?
 196 18:08:30 <GregNoel>	I like your comment; p4 it is.
 197 18:08:39 <stevenknight>	okay
 198 18:09:01 <stevenknight>	done
 199 18:09:15 <stevenknight>	961:  okay with 2.x p3?
 200 18:09:25 <stevenknight>	3.x feels too far out for some useful functionality
 201 18:09:51 <GregNoel>	Yeah, you make a good point in your comment.  How about 2.x p4?
 202 18:09:58 <stevenknight>	done
 203 18:10:24 <stevenknight>	977:  research?  who?
 204 18:10:40 <GregNoel>	977, the wiki page is out, but few review comments...  (hint, hint)
 205 18:11:04 <stevenknight>	fair point
 206 18:11:14 <stevenknight>	give 977 to me, then
 207 18:11:32 <stevenknight>	so i'll have a reminder to comment if i haven't done so by the time I try to clear my research pile
 208 18:11:47 <stevenknight>	977:  research, sk
 209 18:11:48 <GregNoel>	OK; this one is an old issue, mind, so it may be moot by now
 210 18:11:53 <GregNoel>	done
 211 18:11:55 <stevenknight>	right
 212 18:11:59 <stevenknight>	982:  already closed
 213 18:12:24 <stevenknight>	988:  consensus invalid
 214 18:12:31 <GregNoel>	done
 215 18:12:46 <stevenknight>	993:  1.3 p2 sk, +vs_revamp
 216 18:12:56 <GregNoel>	done
 217 18:13:13 <stevenknight>	1003:  consensus invalid
 218 18:13:13 <GregNoel>	1003, invalid
 219 18:13:18 <GregNoel>	done
 220 18:13:33 <stevenknight>	1012:  consensus 3.x p3
 221 18:14:02 <GregNoel>	1012, yes, with your ammendment
 222 18:14:21 <stevenknight>	1017:  consensus invalid
 223 18:14:22 <GregNoel>	1017, invalid
 224 18:14:42 <GregNoel>	done
 225 18:14:46 <stevenknight>	1019:  2.x p3 sk?
 226 18:15:07 *	GregNoel is still reading the comment
 227 18:15:45 <stevenknight>	np
 228 18:16:02 <GregNoel>	OK, your funeral; done
 229 18:16:16 <stevenknight>	:-)
 230 18:16:43 <stevenknight>	1033:  3.x, p[your call], +TaskmasterNG
 231 18:16:53 <GregNoel>	done
 232 18:17:26 <GregNoel>	(I think I'll make it p2 to keep it above the herd)
 233 18:17:41 <stevenknight>	sounds good
 234 18:17:48 <stevenknight>	and we're just coming to the exit for my stop
 235 18:17:53 <stevenknight>	excellent work tonight
 236 18:18:03 <stevenknight>	many thanks, especially given how you're feeling
 237 18:18:20 <GregNoel>	good timing; and I'm starting to sweat, so maybe the fever is breaking.
 238 18:18:28 <GregNoel>	Good time to quit
 239 18:18:31 <stevenknight>	yep
 240 18:18:39 <GregNoel>	OK, cul, and thanks.
 241 18:18:45 <stevenknight>	and you
 242 18:18:46 <stevenknight>	later
 243 18:18:50 *	stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
 244 21:12:03 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 245 

BugParty/IrcLog2009-02-19 (last edited 2009-02-22 19:53:49 by ip68-7-77-81)