1 16:49:01 *	Jason_at_Intel (n=chatzill@12.18.240.224) has joined #scons
   2 16:56:31 *	You are no longer marked as being away
   3 16:56:47 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, you with us for the bug party?
   4 16:58:14 <loonycyborg>	GregNoel: What can I add to it? Besides you always have them when I should be sleeping :P
   5 16:59:53 <GregNoel>	Sleep?  What's that?
   6 17:00:23 <sgk>	that's that thing other people do where they close their eyes and don't move for long periods of time
   7 17:00:27 <sgk>	or so i've heard
   8 17:00:27 <GregNoel>	And the answer to your question is that you have a better perspective on what the users are seeing than any of us here.
   9 17:01:01 <GregNoel>	s/seeing/wanting, needing, desiring, .../
  10 17:01:50 <sgk>	no sign of bdbaddog and garyo was sounding pretty iffy...  :-(
  11 17:02:17 <GregNoel>	Gary said he'd likely be late, so I'm not panicking yet.  yet.
  12 17:06:00 <Jason_at_Intel>	are we waiting for Steve?
  13 17:07:01 <sgk>	i'm here
  14 17:07:13 <Jason_at_Intel>	right :-)
  15 17:07:14 <sgk>	just under a different (officially registered) nick
  16 17:10:06 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, can you open the "current issues" spreadsheet?  There's a link from the BugParty wiki page.
  17 17:11:54 <GregNoel>	And also the current issuezilla page; there's also a link from the BugParty page.  I keep them in different tabs in my browser so I can flip back and forth readily.
  18 17:13:41 <loonycyborg>	GregNoel: I've opened them.
  19 17:13:53 <GregNoel>	Steven, should we start?  It looks like there's close to consensus on the first few; that will give Gary a chance to arrive.
  20 17:14:12 <sgk>	sounds good, let's go
  21 17:14:47 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, the easiest way to follow in issuezilla is to click on the "long format" button
  22 17:14:38 <sgk>	2071:  consensus 2.0 p0 sk
  23 17:14:50 <GregNoel>	done
  24 17:16:10 <sgk>	question about the license (to see if anyone has an opinion)
  25 17:16:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	what does this mean?
  26 17:16:37 <Jason_at_Intel>	is this going to cause a problem for me and Parts add on for Scons?
  27 17:16:40 <sgk>	sorry, mean release forms for code
  28 17:17:28 <Jason_at_Intel>	as in legal forms?
  29 17:17:46 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  to avoid possible legal hassles, we should really have some paper showing it's legal to take code
  30 17:18:00 <GregNoel>	"contributed code"
  31 17:18:01 <sgk>	contributed code
  32 17:18:03 <sgk>	right
  33 17:18:20 <sgk>	we actually have a draft of an assignment that I used for a bit years ago
  34 17:18:28 <sgk>	something I scraped together from other examples
  35 17:18:53 <sgk>	probably full of IANAL holes
  36 17:18:23 <Jason_at_Intel>	As I understand it legally you just need a .lic file shipped with the license
  37 17:18:27 <Jason_at_Intel>	like i have in Parts
  38 17:19:01 <Jason_at_Intel>	Or so I was told by Intel Lawyers
  39 17:19:19 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  that's fine for you distributing Parts
  40 17:19:32 <sgk>	the question is if the SCons Foundation were to incorporate Parts into SCons
  41 17:19:44 <sgk>	if we don't have paper from you and Intel saying it's okay
  42 17:20:04 <sgk>	then legally we'd be open to getting sued for improperly redistributing your IP
  43 17:20:03 <Jason_at_Intel>	I see
  44 17:20:17 <Jason_at_Intel>	course the point of Parts it to be added to SCons
  45 17:20:41 <Jason_at_Intel>	right... you have that OK
  46 17:20:55 <Jason_at_Intel>	I thought gave you an e-mail orginally with all that
  47 17:21:17 <sgk>	believe so, but we haven't been regular about getting this from contributors
  48 17:21:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	Everything in Parts is for Scons to take and use as they like
  49 17:21:34 <sgk>	current agreement basically says you have to give code to scons
  50 17:21:39 <sgk>	which makes some corporate lawyers nervous
  51 17:21:59 <Jason_at_Intel>	sure..  I understand
  52 17:22:19 <sgk>	our lawyer (last I talked) said since we're MIT [license] we could get by with just having contributors license their code to SCons under the same MIT terms we use
  53 17:22:29 <sgk>	so contributors still retain ownership
  54 17:22:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	if "we" needed to clarify anything here let me know
  55 17:22:46 <Jason_at_Intel>	sort of why we released under MIT
  56 17:22:57 <Jason_at_Intel>	normally Intel would have wanted a BSD
  57 17:23:12 <GregNoel>	to proceed, 2509, 1.3 p1 Gary +doc
  58 17:23:22 <sgk>	2509:  done
  59 17:23:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	K
  60 17:23:33 <GregNoel>	2518
  61 17:23:54 <sgk>	you okay with the other consensus?
  62 17:23:55 <GregNoel>	I'll make it a dup of 2536
  63 17:25:11 <sgk>	2518: done
  64 17:25:17 <GregNoel>	2521
  65 17:25:36 <GregNoel>	I'll go with the flow
  66 17:25:43 <sgk>	2521:  ditto, research p2 bdbaddog
  67 17:25:48 <GregNoel>	done
  68 17:25:58 <GregNoel>	2522
  69 17:26:08 <sgk>	2.x p4 okay w/you?
  70 17:26:34 <GregNoel>	Already too much in 2.x; 3.x?
  71 17:26:42 <sgk>	fine with me
  72 17:26:48 <GregNoel>	3.x p3?
  73 17:27:00 <sgk>	+1
  74 17:27:02 <GregNoel>	done
  75 17:27:24 <sgk>	2523:  2.x p3 +symlink +sconf_revamp
  76 17:27:28 <GregNoel>	2523 2.x p3
  77 17:27:36 <GregNoel>	er, sure, we agree
  78 17:28:27 <GregNoel>	2531, this came up in the mailing list today
  79 17:28:52 <GregNoel>	I'll go with the flow; future is OK.
  80 17:27:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	is the auto config going to get redone in 2.x
  81 17:28:32 <Jason_at_Intel>	or better yet are the symlink nodes going to be handed by SCons?
  82 17:29:27 <GregNoel>	Already in train.
  83 17:28:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	moving on
  84 17:29:08 <Jason_at_Intel>	you would need to redo the taskmaster
  85 17:29:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	and the task queue
  86 17:29:46 <sgk>	2531:  future p2
  87 17:29:50 <GregNoel>	done
  88 17:29:54 <Jason_at_Intel>	agreed
  89 17:30:26 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  all of it needs attention
  90 17:30:36 <sgk>	I'm hoping to get guidance from you all on what's top priority for my time
  91 17:30:44 <sgk>	instead of ending up all over the map like I usually do...
  92 17:30:12 <GregNoel>	2532
  93 17:30:39 <GregNoel>	Steven, you want it?
  94 17:30:56 <sgk>	2532:  2.x p2 sk
  95 17:31:06 <GregNoel>	I don't like it that far out, but I'm willing to try.
  96 17:31:17 <sgk>	you'd like it sooner than 2.x?
  97 17:31:28 <Jason_at_Intel>	is this a regression? (2532)
  98 17:31:44 <GregNoel>	No, I don't like something with your name on it that far out, for precisely the reasons you just said.
  99 17:31:57 <sgk>	right
 100 17:32:11 *	sgk goes to re-read the issue...
 101 17:32:39 <GregNoel>	Maybe assign it to Gary for research and recommendations.
 102 17:34:12 <GregNoel>	Steven, we lose you?
 103 17:34:26 <sgk>	no, was off taking a look at the code
 104 17:34:55 <GregNoel>	Maybe assign it to Gary for research and recommendations.
 105 17:35:07 <Jason_at_Intel>	so 2532.. research it?
 106 17:35:16 <GregNoel>	Gary for research and recommendations?
 107 17:35:46 <sgk>	no, give it to me, i think I just figured out a pretty simple fix
 108 17:35:55 <GregNoel>	OK, done
 109 17:36:09 <GregNoel>	what milestone and priority?
 110 17:36:11 <sgk>	we should handle that like we do the other allowable exceptions in substitution
 111 17:36:15 <sgk>	2.1 p2
 112 17:36:18 <GregNoel>	done
 113 17:36:35 <GregNoel>	2533, should be 2.1 p3 garyo
 114 17:36:49 <Jason_at_Intel>	2533... this seem to be a bug in how the win32 installer is made... ... user has to elevate it to run it
 115 17:37:10 <Jason_at_Intel>	or the installer has to be made to get elevation by the system
 116 17:37:32 <sgk>	2.1 p3 garyo
 117 17:37:32 <sgk>	done
 118 17:37:37 <GregNoel>	done
 119 17:38:11 <GregNoel>	2534
 120 17:38:30 <sgk>	i'm okay with doc+test p3
 121 17:38:43 <GregNoel>	milestone?
 122 17:39:13 <GregNoel>	And is node_class=None the right solution?
 123 17:40:09 <sgk>	looking...
 124 17:41:44 <sgk>	sheesh, who designed this API?
 125 17:42:05 <GregNoel>	Er, that would be you?
 126 17:42:11 <sgk>	yep... :-)
 127 17:42:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	SEP for cleaned on API are needed
 128 17:42:39 <Jason_at_Intel>	;-)
 129 17:42:46 <loonycyborg>	Scanner api indeed seems kinda weird.
 130 17:42:54 <sgk>	I'm confused because the default is actually Entry, not File
 131 17:43:04 <sgk>	which normally means that returning a Dir should be okay
 132 17:43:27 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I agree...  So why's it fail?
 133 17:43:49 <sgk>	+1 re: a SEP to clean up APIs
 134 17:44:07 <sgk>	ah
 135 17:44:19 <GregNoel>	Who would write the SEP?  Or should there be more than one?
 136 17:44:28 <sgk>	more than one
 137 17:44:47 <sgk>	one per area of cleanup, probably
 138 17:45:11 <sgk>	okay, i'm taking it back, i think 2534 needs research
 139 17:45:28 <loonycyborg>	I'd prefer if a scanner always was a function taking node, returning list of nodes.
 140 17:46:11 <sgk>	loonycyborg:  that would be a step in a more sane direction, but it's a little more complicated
 141 17:46:28 <sgk>	because a scanner is really conceptually attached to an edge in a DAG, not a node
 142 17:46:41 <GregNoel>	... and there are some other considerations
 143 17:47:31 <GregNoel>	but an API that ran a function with an upstream node would go a long way toward solving a number of problems.
 144 17:47:18 <sgk>	re: 2534, need to figure out where the File lookup is coming from
 145 17:47:49 <GregNoel>	OK, who?  not you?
 146 17:48:51 <sgk>	me... not me... me... not me...
 147 17:49:12 <sgk>	i dunno
 148 17:47:50 <loonycyborg>	Probably api is like that due to taking specifics of scanning c/c++ files in account, e.g. search path etc.
 149 17:48:24 <GregNoel>	API would need an Environment, but that's a secondary consideration.
 150 17:48:24 <loonycyborg>	But you could just make a canned scanner for that case..
 151 17:49:05 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, caching becomes a problem.
 152 17:49:22 <GregNoel>	sgk, decision, or bypass?
 153 17:49:42 <Jason_at_Intel>	research seem to be best
 154 17:49:44 <sgk>	let's defer until next week
 155 17:49:55 <sgk>	it'd be sane to have someone else research
 156 17:49:57 <GregNoel>	done
 157 17:50:10 <GregNoel>	2535
 158 17:50:26 <Jason_at_Intel>	I have this working in Parts
 159 17:50:32 <Jason_at_Intel>	you can take my code for this
 160 17:50:44 <sgk>	2535:  1.3 p1 garyo
 161 17:50:55 <GregNoel>	2535, I don't have a clue
 162 17:50:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	but gary is best guy for this
 163 17:51:08 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  could you update the issue with that info re: code in parts, so he'll see it when he looks?
 164 17:51:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	sure...
 165 17:51:24 <GregNoel>	I'll resist 1.3
 166 17:51:55 <GregNoel>	We should be cutting it next week, unless there's a regression in the checkpoint.
 167 17:52:33 <sgk>	re: 1.3, is that on a separate branch or is it on trunk still?
 168 17:53:00 *	sgk is worried that he's potentially messing up 1.3 with recent checkins...
 169 17:53:18 <GregNoel>	I think you did a rebase recently; that should be the candidate
 170 17:53:36 <GregNoel>	If it's not, it should be twiddled so that it is
 171 17:54:41 <GregNoel>	Were you the one to release the checkpoint?  If so, which branch did you use?
 172 17:55:05 <sgk>	bdbaddog did
 173 17:55:13 <sgk>	that's right, we have the checkpoint branch for that... duh
 174 17:55:48 <sgk>	so 2.1 p1 garyo?
 175 17:55:51 <sgk>	for 2535?
 176 17:56:38 <GregNoel>	p1 or p2?  I don't think it's p1-urgent
 177 17:57:09 <sgk>	good point, p2
 178 17:57:18 <sgk>	can be escalated if it starts burning anyone
 179 17:57:49 <GregNoel>	done
 180 17:58:12 <GregNoel>	Should we go on to your research issues?
 181 17:58:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	added notes of basic code
 182 17:58:32 <sgk>	sure, let's just hit obvious ones for now (consensus, etc.)
 183 17:58:42 <GregNoel>	I think we should settle the lawyer issues; don't know about the rest
 184 17:58:49 <sgk>	2130:  2.0 p0 sk
 185 17:59:06 <GregNoel>	1910, no consensus; bypass
 186 17:59:16 <GregNoel>	2130, yes
 187 17:59:31 <GregNoel>	(I'll really make them p1)
 188 17:59:42 <sgk>	crap, i thought I went through these
 189 17:59:51 <sgk>	obviously I didn't
 190 17:59:48 <Jason_at_Intel>	ideally this is just asking for a license to be added in the documentation
 191 18:00:04 <GregNoel>	765, 2.x p2 garyo
 192 18:00:05 <sgk>	yeah, just need to stamp it with the appropriate creative commons license
 193 18:00:27 <sgk>	765 done
 194 18:00:35 <GregNoel>	2361 bypass
 195 18:00:59 <GregNoel>	780 bypass
 196 18:01:04 <Jason_at_Intel>	I need to do a SEP for packaging
 197 18:01:26 <GregNoel>	914, bypass reluctantly
 198 18:01:40 <GregNoel>	1187 bypass
 199 18:01:52 <GregNoel>	1745 bypass
 200 18:02:12 <GregNoel>	1883 bypass (dup?)
 201 18:04:59 <GregNoel>	None of the rest have enough comments...
 202 18:05:10 <sgk>	yep, sorry about that
 203 18:02:03 <sgk>	914:  probably wontfix at this point
 204 18:02:19 <sgk>	it's been superceded by the stuff I copped from Chromium
 205 18:02:37 <GregNoel>	your choice
 206 18:03:17 <sgk>	re: reluctantly:  is there specific functionality you had in mind that you wanted from 914?
 207 18:04:12 <GregNoel>	No, but the XML output in a standardized format is a good idea.
 208 18:04:21 <GregNoel>	I don't know what you added from Chromium
 209 18:04:48 <sgk>	hmm, what if we just mark it future so it doesn't fall off the radar screen?
 210 18:04:51 <sgk>	that's a little lame, but...
 211 18:05:08 <GregNoel>	Future is on the radar screen?
 212 18:05:19 <sgk>	fair point
 213 18:05:31 <sgk>	it's less off the radar screen than WONTFIX...
 214 18:05:31 <GregNoel>	bypass until next time
 215 18:05:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	I can't seem to edit the file so i have been unable to add comments
 216 18:05:58 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  oh, I meant to update the issue at tigris.org, not in the spreadsheet
 217 18:06:03 <sgk>	if that's what you were trying to do
 218 18:06:19 <sgk>	the spreadsheet is just to try to streamline the triage process in these meetings
 219 18:06:34 <sgk>	it's not for long-term tracking of info on specific bugs
 220 18:06:43 <Jason_at_Intel>	No i added comment on the bug at tigris
 221 18:07:01 <sgk>	okay, thanks
 222 18:08:26 <GregNoel>	decision on 914?
 223 18:09:22 <GregNoel>	(we've run over and I don't know if there's anything to discuss about 1.3)
 224 18:10:02 <Jason_at_Intel>	Steve?
 225 18:11:04 <sgk>	914:  defer to next time
 226 18:11:11 <sgk>	along with rest of research
 227 18:10:21 <Jason_at_Intel>	2347 will be fixed by taskmaster NG?
 228 18:10:35 <Jason_at_Intel>	greg?
 229 18:12:04 *	GregNoel brb
 230 18:14:59 <GregNoel>	back; 2347 not related to taskmaster; related to how symlinks should work: 'value' of symlink is string reference, but has to be worked out so read and write work.
 231 18:15:49 <Jason_at_Intel>	Greg.. thanks!
 232 18:35:57 *	GregNoel just had his wife suggest that it would be a good thing to come to dinner...
 233 18:36:21 <sgk>	GregNoel:  thanks, say hello to your wife
 234 18:36:38 <GregNoel>	wilco, cul
 235 18:36:49 *	You have been marked as being away
 236 18:37:00 <Jason_at_Intel>	later greg!
 237 18:36:33 <sgk>	i should go, too -- i'm still at work and have to buy a printer on the way home
 238 18:37:53 <Jason_at_Intel>	well guess you got to go.. I should go help take care of my kids
 239 18:45:30 <sgk>	gotta get going, catch you guys later
 240 18:45:44 <Jason_at_Intel>	ok later!
 241 18:45:51 *	sgk (n=sgk@nat/google/x-rfygfhizlqsajbfq) has left #scons
 242 18:46:03 <Jason_at_Intel>	I got to go as well
 243 18:46:07 <Jason_at_Intel>	later
 244 18:46:13 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]")
 245 

BugParty/IrcLog2010-01-05 (last edited 2010-01-17 02:31:54 by ip68-7-77-81)