1 10:41:50 * sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/session) has joined #scons
2 16:46:32 * garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
3 16:55:30 * You are no longer marked as being away
4 16:55:41 <garyo> hi, anyone here yet?
5 16:55:55 * GregNoel is still setting up
6 16:57:46 <GregNoel> OK, that seems to do it. Network is very sluggish tonight. Probably overload on my ISP.
7 16:58:25 <garyo> Hi Greg. Got a few comments in...
8 16:58:49 <GregNoel> Hi, Gary... Good.
9 16:59:00 <GregNoel> Steven isn't here yet, so don't stop now.
10 17:00:23 <sgk_> hello
11 17:00:49 <GregNoel> Whoa, where did you come from?
12 17:00:54 <sgk_> using this nick tonight
13 17:01:07 <sgk_> actually signed on much earlier today, as a way to bring up colloquy on my laptop
14 17:02:01 <GregNoel> Ah. So we seem to have a quorum, although Gary is off adding some last-minute comments.
15 17:01:54 <garyo> Hi Steven
16 17:02:09 <GregNoel> And there he is...
17 17:02:10 <sgk_> i'll have a longer shuttle break from now on, probably 1715 - 1725 or so
18 17:02:19 <sgk_> i'm in a new building and have to hike to the stop
19 17:02:44 <GregNoel> Should we move the time to a different time to avoid that?
20 17:03:08 <garyo> My time is limited so let's start in. (Greg: later is better for me usually)
21 17:03:08 <sgk_> if you guys want to, fine, but i'm okay with it either way
22 17:03:26 <sgk_> 2470: any word from OP?
23 17:03:37 <garyo> Yes, he said there's no user-visible error from it.
24 17:03:43 <garyo> So we should just make it low pri.
25 17:03:49 <GregNoel> concur
26 17:03:51 <sgk_> future p4?
27 17:03:56 <sgk_> 3.x p4?
28 17:04:03 <GregNoel> the latter
29 17:04:02 <garyo> I still think it's a bug though. I like 3.x p4.
30 17:04:11 <GregNoel> done
31 17:04:15 <sgk_> 2470: 3.x p4 done
32 17:04:32 <garyo> 2474: someone needs to research it I guess.
33 17:04:57 <GregNoel> From the description, I'm convinced it's the directory thing, so I guess I have to look at it.
34 17:05:12 <garyo> Maybe start by asking OP if it still happens w/ COmmand?
35 17:05:12 <sgk_> okay, research gregnoel?
36 17:05:18 <garyo> +1
37 17:05:23 <GregNoel> yeah, sigh
38 17:05:28 <garyo> thanks
39 17:05:28 <sgk_> thnx
40 17:05:48 <GregNoel> 2482, I think I have a fix
41 17:05:53 <garyo> excellent!
42 17:05:57 <sgk_> GregNoel++
43 17:06:28 <sgk_> brb
44 17:06:46 <GregNoel> I asked the OP to test it, but no word back yet. I can try to work on it this week, but time is being compressed.
45 17:07:44 <garyo> you can say that again.
46 17:08:02 <GregNoel> make it research GregNoel and I'll try to get to it before 1.3 (the test will be nasty)
47 17:08:09 <sgk_> back
48 17:08:38 <garyo> sounds like 2482 is in progress anyway so no action needed from us
49 17:08:01 <garyo> 2490: Greg, did you see if update has tests? I agree w/ your priorities in either case. (I'd say p3, C# is pretty popular)
50 17:08:50 <sgk_> haven't looked at 2490 yet, i'll do so
51 17:09:17 <garyo> ok, steven research, then 2.1/2.x p3 (depending on whether it has tests)?
52 17:09:18 <GregNoel> er, I wrote the OP and he added a note with what the changes were
53 17:09:42 <sgk_> need to put my name on it -- doing so right now
54 17:09:46 <GregNoel> no tests, but he says he can write some when his vacation starts
55 17:09:55 <garyo> ah, he says he'll put some tests together. Great!
56 17:10:22 <sgk_> wait, looks like my name might have been put on 2491 by mistake?
57 17:10:46 <sgk_> no, 2491 is correct, i just need to add 2490
58 17:10:47 <sgk_> don't mind me
59 17:11:19 <garyo> yup, 2491's yours too
60 17:11:55 <garyo> so are we done w/ 2490?
61 17:11:59 <GregNoel> did you set the milestone and priority on 2490?
62 17:12:13 <sgk_> yes, research SK p3
63 17:12:16 <sgk_> just setting now
64 17:12:26 <GregNoel> cool, tks, so 2497
65 17:13:19 <GregNoel> I don't see what he's expecting. He's trying to bind to a static library as if it were dynamic. Doesn't work.
66 17:13:33 <garyo> I think there's a Qt way of building a program from a lib, but this seems low priority to fix to me. Workaround is to add a dummy source.
67 17:13:48 <GregNoel> I agree.
68 17:13:57 <GregNoel> invalid or wontfix?
69 17:14:12 <sgk_> 3.x p4?
70 17:14:22 <garyo> wontfix; user could consider it a bug but we won't fix it.
71 17:14:29 <GregNoel> done
72 17:14:37 <sgk_> okay
73 17:14:55 <garyo> 2498
74 17:15:04 <sgk_> research SK p... 3?
75 17:15:12 <GregNoel> yeah
76 17:15:38 <garyo> ok
77 17:15:41 <GregNoel> done
78 17:16:03 <GregNoel> 2500 fixed?
79 17:16:13 <sgk_> haven't looked, sorry
80 17:16:17 <sgk_> putting my name on this, too
81 17:16:37 <GregNoel> milestone and priority?
82 17:16:28 <sgk_> fortunately, i'm almost done with the timing stuff
83 17:16:38 <sgk_> so i'll prioritize my time after that to clear these
84 17:16:57 <GregNoel> so 1.3 p?
85 17:17:07 <sgk_> research p2, then 2.1 p2 if it's not already fixed?
86 17:17:18 <GregNoel> works
87 17:17:20 <garyo> ok
88 17:17:51 <GregNoel> 2502 who?
89 17:17:49 <garyo> 2502: I can take that one
90 17:17:56 <GregNoel> done
91 17:18:35 <GregNoel> 2503
92 17:18:29 <garyo> 2503: batch-compilation thing
93 17:19:08 <GregNoel> This is usually reordered implicit dependencies
94 17:19:02 <garyo> Steven: is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?
95 17:19:09 <sgk_> my bus is leaving the stop two before mine, gotta go, back in ~5-10
96 17:19:13 * sgk_ has quit ()
97 17:20:08 <GregNoel> for the signature? yeah, it could be bad if the list of sources changes.
98 17:19:42 <garyo> I wish Bill were here, I was hoping he'd have time to put out the checkpoint.
99 17:20:05 <garyo> I absolutely don't have time to do it :-(
100 17:20:42 <garyo> With batch compilation (cl.exe a.c b.c c.c ...) the list changes a lot.
101 17:21:04 <garyo> and it shouldn't recompile everything if only one source changes; it's because the cmd line is part of the sig.
102 17:21:35 <GregNoel> Er, wait... Yeah, I was thinking of how TNG handles it. I don't know if it would be a problem currently.
103 17:22:19 <garyo> I think in this case you explicitly DON'T want the list of sources to be part of the sig of each object.
104 17:23:19 <GregNoel> Probably not, but I should make a note for TNG that this will take some extra specification.
105 17:22:45 <garyo> (he fixes that, but then notes that it still pulls all of them from cache, but that's much lower priority imho)
106 17:23:53 <garyo> I don't use the batch stuff; should probably try it.
107 17:24:00 <garyo> dogfooding & all that.
108 17:24:30 <GregNoel> Neither do I... Or precompiled headers... My projects are all only a few files... Somebody here should use it regularly.
109 17:25:08 <garyo> I can't do precompiled headers because all my stuff is very cross-platform, and a typical precompiled-header organization is pretty different from what you want without them.
110 17:25:41 <garyo> But batch I could use. Just need time...
111 17:26:59 <GregNoel> "Ask me for anything except time."
112 17:27:46 <garyo> :-/
113 17:26:37 <GregNoel> for 2504, it looks like there's a consensus on anytime +Easy, probably p4. I'll go with that.
114 17:27:53 <garyo> agree w/ 2504.
115 17:28:14 <garyo> Looks like Steven's back...
116 17:28:22 * sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/x-ofvjygvagdzcapee) has joined #scons
117 17:28:29 <GregNoel> 2505, no idea. And Steven is back.
118 17:28:29 <garyo> Hi again
119 17:28:29 <sgk_> back
120 17:29:01 <garyo> So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile?
121 17:29:33 <GregNoel> Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?"
122 17:29:35 <garyo> ... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it?
123 17:30:19 * sgk__ (n=sgk@67.218.107.243) has joined #scons
124 17:30:31 <GregNoel> Back again?
125 17:30:45 <garyo> He's adding underscores :-)
126 17:30:53 <sgk__> ...and that takes time!
127 17:30:58 <GregNoel> I suppose it's one way to score...
128 17:31:09 <sgk__> it reconnected to the wrong wifi while we were at the stop
129 17:31:22 <garyo> got it.
130 17:30:34 <GregNoel> Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?"
131 17:31:29 <garyo> So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile?
132 17:31:35 <garyo> ... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it?
133 17:31:50 <sgk__> off hand $( $) sounds reasonable, but i haven't looked at the bug in detail
134 17:32:14 <garyo> can you research it since batch was yours?
135 17:32:19 <sgk__> yeah
136 17:32:30 <garyo> ok, thx
137 17:32:35 <GregNoel> If you can't fix it in a day, say, make it 2.1 p3?
138 17:32:52 * sgk_ has quit (Nick collision from services.)
139 17:33:01 <GregNoel> Bye, Steven
140 17:32:58 * sgk__ is now known as sgk_
141 17:33:05 <GregNoel> Hi, Steven
142 17:33:18 <sgk_> sorry, just removing underscores
143 17:33:23 <sgk_> yes, i'll update right now
144 17:33:31 <GregNoel> OK, thanks
145 17:33:52 <GregNoel> 2504, resolved
146 17:34:53 <GregNoel> er, 2504, anytime p4 +Easy
147 17:33:59 <GregNoel> 2505, no idea
148 17:34:28 <garyo> 2505: nor me really, someone needs to read the doc.
149 17:34:51 <garyo> I think we should just defer it for now. :-(
150 17:35:00 <sgk_> 2505: i thought that's what we were talking about for 2503
151 17:35:03 <sgk_> just put my name on it
152 17:35:05 <sgk_> so give it to me
153 17:35:23 <garyo> ok!
154 17:35:30 <GregNoel> ++
155 17:35:35 <garyo> also 2503 to you, right?
156 17:35:36 <GregNoel> research?
157 17:36:14 <garyo> yes
158 17:36:19 <sgk_> same disposition as 2503, research SK, then 2.1 p3 if fix isn't quick
159 17:36:25 <GregNoel> done
160 17:36:41 <GregNoel> 2506
161 17:37:04 <sgk_> i'd be okay with WONTFIX
162 17:37:15 <garyo> I think we should just let Bill fix it since he found it.
163 17:37:19 <sgk_> and if bdbaddog wants it bad enough he can fix it himself...
164 17:37:20 <sgk_> agreed
165 17:37:23 <GregNoel> either works for me
166 17:37:38 <garyo> wontfix is a little dangerous though since it's not even a funny char, just a dirname with three octal chars.
167 17:37:52 <sgk_> oh
168 17:37:59 <sgk_> okay, then let's give it to bdbaddog
169 17:38:08 <GregNoel> then 2506 Bill 2.x p3?
170 17:38:02 <sgk_> 2.x p3
171 17:38:04 <garyo> +1
172 17:38:10 <GregNoel> done
173 17:38:11 <sgk_> he can reprioritize if he wants, since it's his
174 17:38:38 <sgk_> 2508: change to anytime p4
175 17:38:51 <GregNoel> But not +Easy, so who?
176 17:38:56 <garyo> 2507?
177 17:39:01 <sgk_> do we need to assign anytimes?
178 17:39:06 <sgk_> oh, sorry
179 17:39:18 <garyo> how about future?
180 17:39:18 <sgk_> skipped down too far
181 17:39:20 <sgk_> 2507
182 17:39:34 <garyo> who's our fortran person these days?
183 17:39:46 <GregNoel> Do we have one?
184 17:39:49 <garyo> (silence fills the room)
185 17:39:58 <GregNoel> David, maybe?
186 17:40:00 <sgk_> cricket... cricket... critcket...
187 17:40:15 <GregNoel> (more silence)
188 17:40:14 <sgk_> david, if he'll take it
189 17:40:27 <garyo> I think you're right, David may know Fortran.
190 17:40:26 <sgk_> assign it to him and let him give it back?
191 17:40:33 <garyo> good w/ me
192 17:40:34 <GregNoel> OK, I'll contact him.
193 17:40:34 <sgk_> :-)
194 17:40:38 <GregNoel> done
195 17:40:42 <GregNoel> Oops, milestone and priority?
196 17:40:56 <garyo> 2.x p4
197 17:41:03 <GregNoel> works for me
198 17:41:04 <sgk_> done
199 17:41:19 <sgk_> now 2508, anytime p4
200 17:41:25 <sgk_> do we need to assign an anytime?
201 17:41:37 <GregNoel> Yes, if it's not +Easy
202 17:41:55 <garyo> how about if it's a p4? Maybe those could be left unassigned too?
203 17:42:09 <GregNoel> The +Easy is stuff we hope the community will pick up for us
204 17:42:29 <garyo> true
205 17:42:36 <sgk_> okay, then me
206 17:42:42 <GregNoel> done
207 17:42:51 <garyo> or maybe we just say wontfix?
208 17:43:01 <sgk_> ooh, wontfix isn't a bad idea
209 17:43:21 <sgk_> yeah, wontfix
210 17:44:02 <GregNoel> 2508, wontfix is OK
211 17:43:55 <sgk_> 2509: garyo, back to OP
212 17:43:59 <sgk_> done
213 17:44:08 <garyo> sk: you mean for 2508, right?
214 17:44:17 <garyo> I'd agree w/ that.
215 17:44:33 <sgk_> yes, 2508: wontfix, invite re-open and a patch if it's important
216 17:43:09 <GregNoel> 2509, VS
217 17:43:35 <garyo> 2509: give it to me, I'll ask him to retest w/ trunk.
218 17:43:42 <sgk_> with a note that a patch would be accepted if someone wants to make it all work on windows
219 17:44:38 <sgk_> 2509: garyo, note back to OP
220 17:44:43 <garyo> yes
221 17:44:43 <GregNoel> done
222 17:45:08 <garyo> 2510: agree w/ Steven
223 17:45:12 <GregNoel> ditto
224 17:45:13 <sgk_> 2510 and 2511: 2.x p3 rob
225 17:45:16 <GregNoel> done
226 17:45:19 <garyo> great
227 17:45:51 <GregNoel> 2512
228 17:45:51 <sgk_> 2512: 2.x p2 since a 2.1 volunteer seems unlikely
229 17:46:01 <GregNoel> I have to agree
230 17:46:17 <sgk_> do we need an assignee?
231 17:46:20 <garyo> sure seems like a bug, 2.x p2 is OK. I could take it then.
232 17:46:34 <sgk_> thnx
233 17:46:37 <GregNoel> done, thanks
234 17:46:44 <garyo> (It'll change current behavior of course.)
235 17:47:01 <sgk_> understood re: changed behavior
236 17:46:42 <sgk_> 2513: 2.x p3 rob
237 17:47:04 <sgk_> 2514: 2.x p3 rob
238 17:47:09 <GregNoel> done and done
239 17:47:09 <sgk_> go rob!
240 17:47:18 <garyo> agreed
241 17:47:32 <GregNoel> (minimum goal...)
242 17:47:48 <sgk_> yeah, i'm still 30 minutes away from stop
243 17:48:05 <sgk_> anything else to discuss or should we plung on?
244 17:48:20 <GregNoel> Gary wants to discuss 1.3 release
245 17:48:35 <sgk_> k
246 17:48:46 <garyo> I do; mostly I wanted to see if Bill has time to put out the checkpoint. But he's not here.
247 17:49:01 <garyo> I don't have time to do it, but it needs doing.
248 17:49:19 <garyo> How about if I contact him offline and see what he's up to?
249 17:49:27 <sgk_> garyo: sounds good
250 17:49:36 <GregNoel> garyo, works for me
251 17:49:37 <sgk_> if he can't get at it, let me know and I'll see if i can
252 17:49:45 <sgk_> if it's really ready to go it shouldn't be too bad
253 17:49:52 <garyo> ok, thanks for that. I'll let you know.
254 17:50:17 <garyo> Need to write up the changes but it's basically ready.
255 17:50:24 <sgk_> okay re: release
256 17:47:56 <garyo> Aha, 2515 has good information!
257 17:48:11 <garyo> I can use that to improve the 64-bit detection. Give it to me.
258 17:48:19 <garyo> 1.x p3.
259 17:48:31 <sgk_> 2515: 1.x p3 garyo
260 17:48:32 <GregNoel> 2515, done
261 17:49:14 <GregNoel> 2516, invalid
262 17:49:22 <sgk_> 2516 invalid
263 17:49:32 <garyo> 2516: agreed.
264 17:50:15 <GregNoel> 2517, puzzling
265 17:50:32 <sgk_> 2517: feels like a defer thing to me
266 17:50:40 <sgk_> unless we have a java expert ready to go
267 17:50:52 <GregNoel> OK, defer
268 17:51:09 <garyo> agree w/ defer.
269 17:50:32 <garyo> sgk_: so do you have a Nexus One????
270 17:50:42 <sgk_> garyo: yes
271 17:51:27 <garyo> I want one (Nexus One).
272 17:51:58 <sgk_> i'm digging it
273 17:52:14 <sgk_> big upgrade for me, i was using the G1 they gave us last year
274 17:52:41 <garyo> I have a G1 w/ cyanogen, not too bad. But I want the big screen, snapdragon cpu.
275 17:52:47 <garyo> Do you miss the keyboard?
276 17:52:59 <sgk_> only a little, the touch screen keyboard is pretty good
277 17:53:27 <sgk_> i never did too much text though, mainly the occasional search
278 17:53:29 <garyo> Cool.
279 17:53:34 <sgk_> not much email
280 17:53:43 <garyo> I'm a big mobile emailer.
281 17:53:50 <garyo> G1 keyboard++
282 17:54:04 <sgk_> yeah, my wife got a droid and the keyboard is really disappointing
283 17:51:25 <GregNoel> then 2518 also defer?
284 17:52:02 <garyo> 2518: should we have issues track SEPs, or just close the issue and refer to the SEP?
285 17:53:29 <garyo> As for 2518, I'd like to close issues that are SEPs, and point them to the SEP. Otherwise we get commentary in two places.
286 17:54:12 <GregNoel> 2518, I'd prefer to have one issue to track a SEP, and mark the others as dups.
287 17:54:25 <sgk_> agree w/greg re: an issue to track SEP progress
288 17:54:39 <sgk_> either make a SEP keyword, or an SEP subcomponent
289 17:54:44 <garyo> OK, as long as we link both ways.
290 17:54:53 <garyo> SEP <--> issue
291 17:55:02 <GregNoel> I wrote Cem to see if he'll open an issue; if not, I'll do it.
292 17:55:16 <garyo> thanks, sounds good.
293 17:55:35 <GregNoel> sgk_, good idea; probably a keyword, but I'll think on it and propose something.
294 17:56:33 <sgk_> okay, so 2518: close w/bi-directional reference to SEP
295 17:56:44 <garyo> +
296 17:56:50 <sgk_> 2519: 1.3 p1 bill
297 17:56:54 <GregNoel> 2519, 1.3 p1 Bill
298 17:57:01 <garyo> and 2519 is 1.3 p1 bill? (Why is this p1?)
299 17:57:17 <GregNoel> because it's really trivial?
300 17:57:18 <sgk_> p2? do i hear p2?
301 17:57:33 <GregNoel> either is fine with me
302 17:57:34 <garyo> I'd prefer that at this point.
303 17:57:35 <sgk_> i'd go with p2 just to preserve p1 for really burn-down-the-house things
304 17:57:45 <garyo> especially for 1.3 bugs.
305 17:57:45 <GregNoel> works, done
306 17:58:15 <GregNoel> (nominal goal)
307 17:57:55 <sgk_> 2520: 2.1 p2 garyo?
308 17:58:13 <garyo> sure, looks like it should be mine
309 17:57:58 <sgk_> thnx
310 17:58:36 <GregNoel> ok, done
311 17:59:11 <GregNoel> Not enough comments; defer?
312 17:59:27 <sgk_> defer
313 17:59:29 <GregNoel> that was 2521
314 17:59:47 <sgk_> right
315 17:59:50 <garyo> I haven't looked this far yet
316 17:59:52 <garyo> sorry
317 17:59:56 <sgk_> np
318 18:00:12 <sgk_> looking ahead for consensus...
319 18:00:16 <sgk_> 2524 is on obvious dup
320 18:00:38 <sgk_> defer the rest?
321 18:01:02 <garyo> I think so.
322 18:01:05 <GregNoel> OK with me
323 18:01:10 <sgk_> cool
324 18:01:15 <sgk_> good work tonight
325 18:01:38 <GregNoel> Yes, and there should be fewer than 20 next time (assuming it's two weeks)
326 18:01:57 <sgk_> that's put us in the week between christmas and new years
327 18:02:06 <sgk_> okay by me, but are you two available?
328 18:02:05 <garyo> I'll be around.
329 18:02:09 <GregNoel> so will I
330 18:02:14 <sgk_> let's go for it then
331 18:02:26 <GregNoel> agreed
332 18:02:28 <garyo> good.
333 18:02:45 <garyo> see you around then... and have a great Christmas!
334 18:03:05 <GregNoel> right, you two too (to?)
335 18:03:13 <sgk_> and both of you as well
336 18:03:22 <GregNoel> g'night
337 18:03:28 * garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has left #scons
338 18:03:31 <sgk_> GregNoel: thanks to your team for the job they did on Dallas... :-)
339 18:03:58 <GregNoel> Still worrysome; Denver could catch up, as we did last year.
340 18:03:35 <sgk_> later
341 18:04:18 <GregNoel> But we'll keep trying.
342 18:04:20 <GregNoel> cul
343 18:04:24 <sgk_> l8r
344 18:04:33 * You have been marked as being away
345 18:04:34 * sgk_ (n=sgk@67.218.107.243) has left #scons
346
