Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   1 16:49:02 *	garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   2 16:53:33 *	sgk (n=sgk@c-71-204-129-67.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
   3 16:54:27 *	Jason_at_Intel (n=chatzill@12.18.240.224) has joined #scons
   4 16:54:37 <sgk>	GregNoel:  i'll be a bit late getting back to the meeting, ~1705 - 1710
   5 16:54:48 <Jason_at_Intel>	hello
   6 16:55:36 <garyo>	Hi folks
   7 16:55:46 <Jason_at_Intel>	Hi Gary!
   8 17:00:52 *	You are no longer marked as being away
   9 17:00:58 <GregNoel>	Hi, all.  It's raining in San Diego and I've already had a few power fluctuations today (but no trips yet, knock on wood).
  10 17:00:59 *	GregNoel raps smartly on his head
  11 17:00:59 <GregNoel>	Ow!  In any event, if I suddenly drop off-line, assume I've lost power and I'll get back as soon as I can.
  12 17:01:51 <garyo>	Hi Greg.
  13 17:08:44 <garyo>	SO folks, on to the bugs?
  14 17:09:09 <sgk>	hey all
  15 17:09:16 <Jason_at_Intel>	Hi steve!
  16 17:09:21 <GregNoel>	Ah, welcome back.
  17 17:09:23 <garyo>	Hi Steve
  18 17:09:25 <GregNoel>	Shall we get started?  2534 is first up.
  19 17:09:43 <garyo>	George Foot's comment seems apropos.  Doc p3?
  20 17:10:03 <GregNoel>	No, Steven thought it was a bug last time.
  21 17:10:33 <garyo>	OK I'm confused, the ssheet note says default type is Entry, but I think it's File.
  22 17:10:43 <garyo>	Steven?
  23 17:10:52 <GregNoel>	Steven?
  24 17:10:59 <Jason_at_Intel>	I thought this was to be researched
  25 17:11:21 <garyo>	I like that: steven, research.
  26 17:11:30 <sgk>	sorry, catching up on the conversation
  27 17:11:35 <sgk>	been a hellish day
  28 17:11:40 <garyo>	sorry 2 hear that
  29 17:11:49 <garyo>	I have a lot of those these days :-/
  30 17:11:55 <sgk>	ooo sick; power outage; etc.
  31 17:12:29 <GregNoel>	My lights just flickered, so I can empathize (not sympathize)
  32 17:12:21 <sgk>	2534:  think we should give it to me to research
  33 17:12:25 <garyo>	+1
  34 17:12:37 <GregNoel>	done
  35 17:12:50 <GregNoel>	1910, 2361, 780, 914, 1187, 1745, 1883, 1945: bypass for lack of comments
  36 17:12:50 <GregNoel>	(Yes, Steven, 914 reluctantly)
  37 17:12:50 <GregNoel>	2058 consensus 2.0 p1 stevenknight
  38 17:12:50 <GregNoel>	2070 consensus 2.0 p1 stevenknight
  39 17:12:50 <GregNoel>	2096, I think Gary needs to agree, but otherwise consensus 2.x p4 +sconf_revamp
  40 17:12:50 <GregNoel>	2249
  41 17:13:27 <Jason_at_Intel>	woo
  42 17:14:10 <garyo>	2096: I agree, 2.x p4
  43 17:14:52 <GregNoel>	2096, done
  44 17:13:47 <sgk>	greg re: 914
  45 17:13:53 <GregNoel>	yes?
  46 17:13:58 <sgk>	how about if we make that future p4 or something so it doesn't get lost
  47 17:14:07 <sgk>	agree that the general concept of XML for results is good
  48 17:14:18 <sgk>	but nothing is burning for it right now
  49 17:14:33 <GregNoel>	future p4 is off the radar, but I'll go along.
  50 17:15:19 <GregNoel>	914, other consensus?
  51 17:15:30 <garyo>	agree w/ 914
  52 17:15:32 <sgk>	future p3, then
  53 17:15:37 <GregNoel>	done
  54 17:16:05 <garyo>	My Issue List query doesn't match the spreadsheet today :-/
  55 17:16:58 <GregNoel>	garyo, a bunch of issues from last time are still there, formerly Steven's research issues.
  56 17:16:18 <sgk>	2249:  research bdbaddog (since he volunteered)
  57 17:16:26 <GregNoel>	done
  58 17:16:58 <garyo>	OR: 2249: ask OP if it still happens.
  59 17:17:34 <sgk>	2249:  that's a reasonable suggestion for the update
  60 17:17:44 <garyo>	It's a year old and vs_revamp is better.
  61 17:17:49 <sgk>	yep
  62 17:18:11 <sgk>	2249:  research bdbaddog, comment suggests asking OP
  63 17:18:17 <garyo>	+1
  64 17:18:23 <GregNoel>	done
  65 17:18:39 <GregNoel>	2304
  66 17:18:39 <sgk>	2304:  research SK
  67 17:18:42 <Jason_at_Intel>	I should comment on 2304, I might have a work around for this one, but i have to finish the testing of this in Parts yet
  68 17:19:19 <GregNoel>	I don't believe that's possible
  69 17:18:59 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  sounds good
  70 17:19:17 <garyo>	OK, let's assign it to jason to research?
  71 17:19:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	it will probably need a patch to the File object
  72 17:19:45 <garyo>	???
  73 17:19:45 <sgk>	GregNoel: re your comment:  agreed we may not be able to build on top of the locked executable
  74 17:19:51 <GregNoel>	rebuilding a program as the same time you're running it is NOT a good idea, no matter where or when.
  75 17:20:00 <sgk>	but we should handle the error gracefully and not die
  76 17:20:04 <garyo>	Of course not on Windows, but at least interactive mode could recover.
  77 17:20:10 <Jason_at_Intel>	I agree with that.. but the system should  not die
  78 17:20:24 <sgk>	you should be able to stay in interactive mode and build other things
  79 17:20:33 <sgk>	or rebuild the same executable next time
  80 17:20:31 <garyo>	ok we all agree.  research jason?
  81 17:20:31 <GregNoel>	On *IX, the file is overwritten, so the code will change out from under the running program.  NOT a good idea.
  82 17:20:36 <Jason_at_Intel>	Scons dies with the unlink Action()
  83 17:21:01 <garyo>	Greg: on *IX I do this all the time, multiple times daily.  And yes, sometimes I pay the price. :-)
  84 17:21:23 <sgk>	agreed, but people do things like this, so the question is how do we want to handle it?
  85 17:21:26 <GregNoel>	consensus?
  86 17:21:37 <sgk>	research Jason_at_Intel if he's up for it
  87 17:21:39 <sgk>	otherwise SK
  88 17:21:47 <garyo>	Recover as best as possible, with build failure msg.  Just the same as "out of disk space."
  89 17:22:01 <Jason_at_Intel>	basically
  90 17:22:11 <garyo>	jason, will you take it on?
  91 17:22:16 <Jason_at_Intel>	Sure
  92 17:22:19 <GregNoel>	OK
  93 17:22:20 <garyo>	ok, done
  94 17:22:25 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel++
  95 17:22:39 <GregNoel>	2347 consensus 2.x p3 +symlink
  96 17:22:39 <GregNoel>	2536
  97 17:22:57 <sgk>	i like greg's suggestion of research OP
  98 17:23:17 <GregNoel>	so do I, or I wouldn't have suggested it. {;-}
  99 17:23:36 <garyo>	Yeah, makes sense 2 me too.
 100 17:23:39 <sgk>	done
 101 17:23:49 <GregNoel>	done
 102 17:23:53 <GregNoel>	2537 FIXED (thanks, Steven!)
 103 17:23:53 <GregNoel>	2538 I don't like anytime issues assigned to Steven, but I'll go with the flow
 104 17:24:06 <sgk>	agreed on both counts
 105 17:24:21 <sgk>	done
 106 17:24:25 <sgk>	?
 107 17:24:36 <GregNoel>	consensus?
 108 17:24:50 <garyo>	ok
 109 17:24:56 <GregNoel>	done
 110 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	2540 FIXED (thanks, Steven!)
 111 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	(We've achieved the minimal target for today; congratulations to us!)
 112 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	2541, 2542, 2545: bypass for lack of comments
 113 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	2546 consensus WONTFIX
 114 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	2547, 2548, 2549: bypass for lack of comments
 115 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	(We've achieved the nominal target for today; I suppose congratulations are due, but it seems rather empty since we'll see so many again next time.)
 116 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	2550, 2551, 2552, 2553, 2554, 2555, 2556 (so close!), 2557: bypass for lack of comments
 117 17:24:59 <GregNoel>	And that's all for today...  Is there any discussion needed about releasing 1.3?  With the checkpoint released today, plan for two weeks, so about January 31st?  (That is, a year late...)
 118 17:25:18 <garyo>	Steven, I can work that kind of thing in the bg so if it becomes a timesink let me know.
 119 17:25:53 <sgk>	garyo:  the irc channel?
 120 17:25:57 <garyo>	sgk: yes.
 121 17:26:22 <sgk>	cool, i'll take you up on that if it gets thorny
 122 17:26:28 <garyo>	np
 123 17:25:45 <garyo>	Greg: I think since this ckpoint is very minimally different from the last except doc, a week is enough.  Just my opinion though.
 124 17:26:59 <GregNoel>	garyo, yes, but only if it's really pushed on the mailing lists to get the maximal feedback.
 125 17:27:18 <garyo>	I'm itching to get 1.3 out.  I think we've checkpointed it to death.  Greg: great idea re: ML pushing.  I will do that.
 126 17:27:22 <bdbaddog>	Greetings.. sorry I'm late..
 127 17:27:53 <garyo>	Hey Bill!  Good job getting both checkpoints out!
 128 17:27:40 <Jason_at_Intel>	so what is holding up 1.3
 129 17:27:52 <Jason_at_Intel>	I am sort of for making it happen
 130 17:27:36 <sgk>	should we try to look at some of the issues that have two consensus comments?
 131 17:27:54 <GregNoel>	sgk, cherry-pick away...
 132 17:28:02 <sgk>	if others add "verbal" consensus we won't have to revisit so many
 133 17:29:09 <GregNoel>	that was the point of the fusillade, so if you want to try to get verbal consensus to get rid of them, I'm all for it.
 134 17:28:18 *	sgk scrolls back in the spreadsheet...
 135 17:29:08 <sgk>	2547 and 2548:  future p1 +java
 136 17:29:10 <sgk>	any objections?
 137 17:29:56 <GregNoel>	2547, 2548, I'll go along; any others?
 138 17:29:37 <sgk>	hang on, table 2547 and 2548, let's finish the 1.3 discussion first
 139 17:30:36 <garyo>	2547,2548: I'm fine w/ future p1 +java.  sigh. :-)
 140 17:31:04 <GregNoel>	2547, 2548, that's three; done
 141 17:28:20 <garyo>	Jason: we just need to let Bill's last checkpoint stew for long enough to make sure it's not got horrible bugs.
 142 17:28:45 <Jason_at_Intel>	ok
 143 17:29:10 <garyo>	That's why I say 1 week, not the usual 2.  Bill, opinion on how long to let the checkpoint stew?
 144 17:29:43 <bdbaddog>	We going with 2 weeks again (of stew time)?  I'd be up for shorter, but I don't remember what changes between last checkpoint and this one was, if mostly doc, then 1week is good by me.
 145 17:30:05 <sgk>	1 week seems good to me
 146 17:30:12 <garyo>	I put in one significant fix to detect 64 vs. 32 bit OS default.  That's it I think.
 147 17:30:16 <bdbaddog>	O.k. so 1/24/2010
 148 17:30:30 <sgk>	i'm anticipating more users and problem reports when we officially release 1.3 regardless of whether it's 1 or 2 weeks
 149 17:30:46 <garyo>	sgk: I agree, that's another reason to get it out sooner.
 150 17:30:57 <sgk>	at this point an extra week soaking 1.3 checkpoints isn't the crucial difference between success and failure
 151 17:30:57 <garyo>	So we can do 1.3.1 sooner :-/
 152 17:31:20 <sgk>	right, we should be ready to jump on 1.3 bug reports and prep 1.3.1
 153 17:31:24 <sgk>	my gut says about a month after
 154 17:31:44 <garyo>	sgk: maybe, let's see.
 155 17:31:23 <garyo>	ok, is that consensus?  Next weekend is 1.3?
 156 17:31:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	I agree... get 1.3 out earlier and let a 1.3.1 fix issues found in 1.3.. this way more people will test it
 157 17:31:57 <garyo>	But we can start on the 2.0 work immediately.
 158 17:32:01 <sgk>	i'll be happy to be wrong and go straight to 2.0... :-)
 159 17:32:12 <GregNoel>	yep
 160 17:32:20 <bdbaddog>	so at 1.3 release we create a 1.3 branch?
 161 17:32:32 <bdbaddog>	and trunk becomes pre-2.0 ?
 162 17:32:32 <GregNoel>	Er, SVN doesn't work that way.
 163 17:32:45 <GregNoel>	No need to branch until you need it.
 164 17:32:56 <GregNoel>	If you know what I mean.
 165 17:33:24 <sgk>	either way it'd have the same effect
 166 17:33:31 <bdbaddog>	so just cp and then branch from that if needed?
 167 17:33:35 <garyo>	Sure, but we might as well create it when we do 1.3 so people have an official place to work on 1.3.1 rather than making the first person to fix something have to create it.
 168 17:33:45 <sgk>	i can see an argument for branching right away because I doubt we'll get through a big change like vs_revamp in 1.3 unscathed
 169 17:33:46 <garyo>	That's how I usually do it.
 170 17:33:59 <sgk>	what garyo said
 171 17:34:01 <Jason_at_Intel>	it seems we woudl want to make a 1.3 branch and have truck be 2.0.. and make a 1.3.1 branch we add patches to for a 1.3.1 drop
 172 17:34:06 <bdbaddog>	+1 for branching 1.3 at 1.3 release.
 173 17:34:20 <sgk>	okay, let's go for it (scm orthodoxy be damned...  :-))
 174 17:34:21 <garyo>	Just cp trunk to tag, then cp tag to branch.  And yes, trunk becomes pre-2.0.
 175 17:34:25 <bdbaddog>	there'd be a 1.3 release, and a 1.3 branch
 176 17:34:34 <bdbaddog>	+1 garyo's description.
 177 17:35:01 <GregNoel>	So branch trunk to branches/1.3.fixes or some such?  Sure, why not?  Branches are cheap.
 178 17:35:30 <GregNoel>	... or branch release?  That should be discussed.
 179 17:34:55 <bdbaddog>	so then BB does trunk? and/or 1.3?
 180 17:35:27 <garyo>	what's BB, Bill?
 181 17:35:32 <bdbaddog>	BuildBot
 182 17:35:36 <garyo>	ah yes.
 183 17:35:49 <garyo>	Good question.
 184 17:36:06 <garyo>	Is it realistic to want both?
 185 17:36:19 <GregNoel>	BB already does trunk, checkpoint, release, and branches/*, so what are you saying?
 186 17:36:40 <garyo>	Really?  I didn't know that.  In that case, just carry on.
 187 17:37:07 <sgk>	yeah, GregNoel added mutliple branch support
 188 17:37:25 <sgk>	surprised me too, but it tested all of bdbaddog's recent checkpoint patches
 189 17:39:02 <bdbaddog>	Way to go Greg!
 190 17:37:31 <garyo>	Cool, is that just in our BB or sent upstream?
 191 17:38:02 <GregNoel>	It's one of the examples in the BB manual, so I think they know about it.
 192 17:38:13 <garyo>	good.
 193 17:38:31 <garyo>	OK, sounds like most of a plan!
 194 17:38:44 <bdbaddog>	:)
 195 17:38:37 <sgk>	go 1.3!
 196 17:39:01 <GregNoel>	Geaux Saints!
 197 17:38:58 <garyo>	Yeah!  And thanks bdbaddog for all the grunt work on the checkpoints!
 198 17:39:15 <sgk>	okay, and we have consensus on 2547, 2548
 199 17:39:20 <sgk>	on to more of the issues?
 200 17:39:34 <bdbaddog>	sure.
 201 17:39:36 <GregNoel>	any others you want to cherry-pick?
 202 17:40:17 <garyo>	how about 2556?
 203 17:40:17 <sgk>	2556:  send it back to OP for test case?
 204 17:40:23 <sgk>	jinx
 205 17:40:42 <garyo>	OK, 2556 came from a ML discussion.  I'll ask him to paste in the testcase.
 206 17:41:56 <GregNoel>	2556, should we close it and ask him to reopen when he adds the test case?
 207 17:42:14 <sgk>	2556:  sure, that works
 208 17:42:14 <garyo>	Nah, I'll just comment on the tkt as is.
 209 17:42:37 <GregNoel>	(is there such a thing as a reverse jinx?)
 210 17:42:23 <garyo>	I asked him to report it anyway.
 211 17:42:27 <sgk>	oh, okay
 212 17:41:17 <GregNoel>	done
 213 17:40:27 <Jason_at_Intel>	2542?
 214 17:40:40 <sgk>	and 2557:  conensus 2.1 p2 rob?
 215 17:41:13 <garyo>	+1 on 2557.
 216 17:41:17 <GregNoel>	done
 217 17:41:29 <sgk>	cool
 218 17:41:40 <sgk>	i have another topic if we're (nominally) done with issues for this week
 219 17:41:51 <garyo>	shoot
 220 17:42:48 <sgk>	next topic:  scrapping runtest.py in favor of using unittest as the harness
 221 17:43:06 <GregNoel>	Ulp.
 222 17:43:28 <sgk>	turned out to be pretty easy to do
 223 17:43:51 <sgk>	or at least to prototype
 224 17:43:57 <GregNoel>	How would it work?
 225 17:44:09 <sgk>	well, that's why i want to discuss it
 226 17:44:29 <Jason_at_Intel>	you mean the python unit test lib?
 227 17:44:12 <garyo>	sgk: Can you reuse all the stuff in QMTest/ dir?  There's a lot of value in there.
 228 17:44:31 <garyo>	(e.g. TestSCons.py, TestCmd.py)
 229 17:44:39 <sgk>	garyo:  yeah, that stuff all stays
 230 17:44:50 <garyo>	ok, good.
 231 17:44:56 <sgk>	those are basically test fixtures
 232 17:45:11 <sgk>	what i prototyped was a simple shotgun marriage
 233 17:45:27 <sgk>	where unittest still calls out (using subprocess) to execute individual test scripts like today
 234 17:45:35 <sgk>	but it reports the results back using unittest conventions
 235 17:45:46 <sgk>	so it looks like a python unittest for reporting
 236 17:45:55 <sgk>	but is (at least for now) still just executing scripts
 237 17:46:04 <bdbaddog>	does that enable/block parallel testing?
 238 17:46:23 <sgk>	unfortunately, it looks like unittest itself doesn't enable parallel testing
 239 17:46:27 <sgk>	so it's orthogonal
 240 17:46:48 <sgk>	i.e. this change doesn't make parallel testing more or less likely
 241 17:46:46 <garyo>	So the main benefit is prettier output?
 242 17:47:14 <sgk>	yeah, this is why I was a little... hesitant... when the idea of unittest seemed to get a positive reaction from you guys a few weeks back
 243 17:47:19 <sgk>	(iirc)
 244 17:47:29 <Jason_at_Intel>	Do you have thie prototyped checked in?
 245 17:47:45 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  I'd have to think about this.  Why don't you add it to SConsTestingRevisions in the wiki?
 246 17:47:33 <bdbaddog>	upside is less infrastructure to maintain?
 247 17:47:49 <sgk>	right, runtest.py is all homebrew, this leverages unittest
 248 17:48:16 <sgk>	but that doesn't necessarily seem like a really compelling reason to switch
 249 17:48:06 <Jason_at_Intel>	I coudl use it in Parts i think to handle some cases that are hard to handle with a straight unittest code
 250 17:48:27 <garyo>	runtest.py is only 834 lines, not huge.
 251 17:48:31 <GregNoel>	You'd still need a test runner, but it wouldn't be as complex...  I still need to think about it.
 252 17:48:55 <sgk>	okay, the code isn't much, I'll add it to the wiki and send out something to the ML for discussion
 253 17:49:12 <bdbaddog>	sounds good. then we can play with it (time allowing)..
 254 17:49:16 <garyo>	sgk: my biggest beef with QMtest was managing stdout/stderr when debugging tests (not just running them where you always want it hidden).
 255 17:49:30 <GregNoel>	concur
 256 17:49:32 <garyo>	Would unittest maybe help?
 257 17:49:31 <sgk>	garyo:  this doesn't solve that
 258 17:49:37 <garyo>	oh well.
 259 17:49:45 <sgk>	you're still running external scripts and having to capture the output
 260 17:49:51 <sgk>	what I could do about that, though....
 261 17:50:05 <sgk>	is expose the Trace() function as a supported part of the API
 262 17:50:24 <sgk>	that writes to /dev/tty on POSIX and con on Windows
 263 17:50:34 <sgk>	so you can at least add debug prints easily
 264 17:50:18 <garyo>	That'd help somewhat.
 265 17:50:41 <Jason_at_Intel>	unittest makes it easy to set up a structure to run on a give test at a time
 266 17:51:03 <garyo>	runtest.py can do that too.
 267 17:51:02 <sgk>	okay, follow-on test discussion:
 268 17:51:28 <sgk>	all the in-line test code in strings
 269 17:51:44 <sgk>	which makes it a pain to read the test code
 270 17:51:51 <sgk>	and complicates going forward to Python 3.0
 271 17:51:58 <garyo>	plus most of them are big regexes now anyway :-)
 272 17:52:17 <garyo>	you have a solution?!
 273 17:52:38 <sgk>	yeah, i think so
 274 17:52:52 <sgk>	we change the unit of test granularity from individual files to directories
 275 17:53:21 <sgk>	each directory is a test config with the input SConstruct *.c etc. files checked in directly
 276 17:52:30 <loonycyborg>	sgk: btw how exactly you're planning to upgrade to python3?
 277 17:52:52 <GregNoel>	Hi, Sergey; thanks for being with us again!
 278 17:52:54 <garyo>	Hi Sergey
 279 17:52:58 <sgk>	Sergey++
 280 17:53:13 <loonycyborg>	That'll require all SConstruct files moved to python3 too.
 281 17:53:23 <GregNoel>	directories, erk..
 282 17:53:48 <bdbaddog>	That's the way I usually setup regressions for my clients.. so I'm all for that.
 283 17:53:49 <garyo>	radical!
 284 17:54:01 <bdbaddog>	A dir per test. or group of tests?
 285 17:53:47 <sgk>	the test script(s) within a directory have identifying prefixes
 286 17:54:08 <sgk>	so you can actually have multiple individual tests re-using the same config (directory)
 287 17:54:32 <sgk>	the test infrastructure copies the directory contents (except for test scripts and .svn directories) to the temp dir to run the test
 288 17:54:41 <loonycyborg>	You could as well make a full api overhaul coincide with moving to python3 :P
 289 17:55:10 <sgk>	loonycyborg:  that's actually worth considering
 290 17:55:26 <sgk>	at least, maybe use it as a clean way to shed some of the cruftier parts of the current API
 291 17:55:25 <garyo>	sgk: I get it -- so even sub/a/b kind of things just get checked in.
 292 17:55:38 <sgk>	garyo:  right
 293 17:55:48 <sgk>	i think it makes the test configurations more comprehensible
 294 17:55:52 <bdbaddog>	I've very tired of having to put all the files in strings in the tests..
 295 17:56:00 <sgk>	yep
 296 17:56:12 <garyo>	sgk: I think there are still some cases where files have to be dynamically created etc. but a small %age, so this would clean up a lot.
 297 17:56:22 <sgk>	right, it also doesn't completely solve things like updating files as an intermediate step
 298 17:56:55 <garyo>	But what about testing stdout/stderr?  Special files to represent expected output?
 299 17:57:16 <sgk>	yeah, those could either be checked in as .golden files or something
 300 17:57:29 <sgk>	or else those can stay in-line if it makes more sense to not clutter the config
 301 17:57:17 <bdbaddog>	"golden" files in my industry..
 302 17:57:39 <Jason_at_Intel>	gold files here :-)
 303 17:57:44 <sgk>	i think that's less of a problem since they're (typically) not actually code
 304 17:58:03 <garyo>	Cool.  With regex semantics I assume.  I want to think about this, but it seems very sensible on the face of it.
 305 17:58:17 <GregNoel>	concur w/ garyo
 306 17:58:32 <sgk>	okay, let's let it sink in for a bit
 307 17:58:40 <bdbaddog>	+1 for me. I'm all for it.
 308 17:58:49 <garyo>	I'll pick a few tests randomly to see how they'd look.
 309 17:58:51 <sgk>	if we want to go forward with it, i'm looking for a read on the right priority
 310 17:58:59 <GregNoel>	I think adding it to the existing wiki page for testing cleanup is the first step.
 311 17:59:01 <sgk>	we could actually also do it incrementally
 312 17:59:17 <garyo>	sgk: +1
 313 17:59:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	incrementally ++
 314 17:59:25 <GregNoel>	that's why I suggest the wiki page, so we could break down what can be done first
 315 17:59:36 <sgk>	sure
 316 17:59:44 <GregNoel>	... and add a discussion page to the wiki page...
 317 17:59:53 <garyo>	If you can make the test runner run these, that would be a great step.
 318 17:59:50 <sgk>	my rough idea for incremental is
 319 18:00:03 *	sgk decides to save that for the wiki page...
 320 17:59:50 <bdbaddog>	BTW.. are we due for a moin moin update?
 321 18:00:10 <garyo>	bdbaddog: are we?  I can do that if needed.
 322 18:00:30 <GregNoel>	moin, long overdue; they're at 1.9 already...
 323 18:00:45 <garyo>	OK, I'll look into it in the next wk or 2.
 324 18:00:50 <sgk>	garyo:  thnx
 325 18:01:15 <GregNoel>	garyo, please coordinate with me, so we can upgrade at the same time.
 326 18:01:16 <Jason_at_Intel>	<wishing the Tigris wiki site would be upgraded >
 327 18:01:34 <garyo>	Greg: will do.
 328 18:01:09 <sgk>	what should be my top priority right now?  the legal stuff?
 329 18:01:53 <garyo>	Steven: what are the choices?
 330 18:02:23 <GregNoel>	sgk, I nominate finishing out any 1.3 stuff, then the legal stuff, then the 2.0 stuff
 331 18:02:48 <sgk>	legal stuff, 1.3 stuff, 2.0 stuff, test infrastructure, performance graph stuff
 332 18:03:11 <Jason_at_Intel>	greg++
 333 18:03:11 <sgk>	actually, i don't have any 1.3 issues on my list at the moment
 334 18:03:32 <GregNoel>	yeah, but something might appear.  set the priorities now.
 335 18:03:17 <garyo>	ok, get the legal stuff done with.  I don't think you have any significant 1.3 todos.
 336 18:03:41 <garyo>	GregNoel++
 337 18:03:39 <sgk>	oh, also string template refactoring
 338 18:04:03 <GregNoel>	what refactoring?
 339 18:04:23 <sgk>	re-doing subst() and subst_list() for performance
 340 18:03:53 <garyo>	2526?
 341 18:04:06 <sgk>	yeah
 342 18:04:27 <garyo>	My opinion: too late for 1.3, it could introduce new bugs.
 343 18:04:36 <sgk>	using the same generatl technique of string.Template in the Python lib
 344 18:04:46 <sgk>	oh, definitely not that for 1.3
 345 18:05:10 <sgk>	don't want to derail that train
 346 18:05:06 <bdbaddog>	I think for 1.3, only doc bugs and regressions..
 347 18:05:20 <garyo>	ok, so make 2526 2.1 then.
 348 18:05:51 <bdbaddog>	are you on to another spreadsheet?
 349 18:06:08 <garyo>	(No, I just brought up all Steven's issues.)
 350 18:06:15 <bdbaddog>	ahh o.k.
 351 18:05:56 <garyo>	So I'm with Greg: any 1.3 issues, then legal stuff, then 2.0 stuff.
 352 18:06:50 <sgk>	okay, i think i'm set then
 353 18:06:57 <garyo>	excellent.
 354 18:06:58 *	sgk grits his teeth in anticipation of talking to lawyers
 355 18:07:37 <garyo>	On a totally unrelated note, my Nexus One is the most awesome pocket computing device ever made.  Google ftw!
 356 18:08:30 <sgk>	garyo:  i'm totally digging mine.  the keyboard interface is good for you?
 357 18:08:59 <garyo>	sgk: yes, no problems at all.
 358 18:07:41 <GregNoel>	I'd also reconsider the 1.3 all-doc issues (upgrading the user's guide) and see if they can be done for 2.0, but have Steven parcel them out to sucke, ah, people of his choice.
 359 18:08:14 <garyo>	Good point Greg -- we need to move the rest of the 1.3 issues forward.  Can you do that?
 360 18:08:34 <GregNoel>	For everything except the doc, yes, I have a policy I apply.
 361 18:08:41 <garyo>	Now that the doc procedure is improved I should be able to help there.
 362 18:08:56 *	sgk remembers that he has to write up that README...
 363 18:09:35 <garyo>	re: doc readme: yes please.
 364 18:09:57 <sgk>	k, that's probably P(-1) for me then
 365 18:10:03 <sgk>	the legal stuff is all P0
 366 18:10:08 <GregNoel>	(For what it's worth, the policy is to move the issues forward to the next point release, but bump their priority by one so they'll get more consideration at the next level.)
 367 18:10:29 <garyo>	Sensible.
 368 18:10:30 <sgk>	sounds good
 369 18:11:02 <GregNoel>	Is applying for a group also p0?
 370 18:11:15 <sgk>	i suppose so
 371 18:11:28 <GregNoel>	I'm in agreement then.
 372 18:11:25 <garyo>	Are we going to get kicked out or something if we don't apply?
 373 18:11:51 <garyo>	If so, then I agree.  This channel works nicely.
 374 18:12:02 <sgk>	garyo:  i don't think we're going to get kicked out
 375 18:12:17 <sgk>	but we're restricted in what we can do administratively
 376 18:12:25 <GregNoel>	garyo, no, we're grandfathered, since our channel was formed 6+ years ago, and the policy is only 4 years old.
 377 18:12:46 <GregNoel>	but it would be good to abide by the policy.
 378 18:12:52 <sgk>	it was a bit of a hassle to transfer ownership from TTimo to me because we don't fully exist under the new rules
 379 18:13:05 <garyo>	Makes sense to get it done then.
 380 18:13:23 <GregNoel>	can at least start the process to show good faith.
 381 18:13:42 <sgk>	BTW, GregNoel:  i looked around at some other channels
 382 18:14:00 <sgk>	it seems like using | as the separator between sections of the topic is more the norm than -
 383 18:14:10 <GregNoel>	OK, wilco
 384 18:14:51 *	sgk has changed the topic to: SCons | building software, better | http://www.scons.org | next bug triage party is Tue 2 Feb 2010 17h00 US/Pacific
 385 18:14:55 <garyo>	Greg, guess your power held out today!
 386 18:15:01 <GregNoel>	so far...
 387 18:14:50 <GregNoel>	Next party on Groundhog's day?
 388 18:15:15 <sgk>	excellent!  we can have the next bug party over and over and over again...
 389 18:15:24 <garyo>	:-)
 390 18:15:49 <GregNoel>	sgk, ++
 391 18:15:36 <GregNoel>	Ten points to anybody who can spell where the Groundhog's Day official celebration is held...
 392 18:15:47 <sgk>	Punxatawney PA
 393 18:15:47 <garyo>	punxatawney
 394 18:16:04 <garyo>	sgk: you win
 395 18:16:05 <GregNoel>	jinx, you guys are too good.
 396 18:16:20 <garyo>	I was a spelling bee kid in my youth
 397 18:16:41 <Jason_at_Intel>	:-) I was not :-)
 398 18:17:03 <GregNoel>	It's not far from where my wife grew up, so she can frustrate me by spelling it...  all I can manage is punx*
 399 18:16:39 <bdbaddog>	And a the groudhog's name?
 400 18:16:44 <sgk>	Phil
 401 18:16:44 <garyo>	phil
 402 18:16:59 <bdbaddog>	:)
 403 18:17:03 <Jason_at_Intel>	look at the trivial buffs
 404 18:17:09 <GregNoel>	yes, Phill
 405 18:17:16 <sgk>	damn, the amount of grey matter garyo and i have devoted to this stuff is scary
 406 18:17:22 <GregNoel>	(two ll's I think)
 407 18:17:33 <garyo>	two Ls: I doubt it.
 408 18:18:13 <GregNoel>	oops, the wife agrees.
 409 18:18:18 <GregNoel>	mea culpa.
 410 18:18:35 <garyo>	anyway, bdbaddog: can you manage the release cycle?  If so, how can I help?
 411 18:19:00 <bdbaddog>	as far as building and pushing the packages, no prob.
 412 18:19:16 <garyo>	OK, I can help w/ release announcements etc.
 413 18:19:22 <bdbaddog>	might need some help on the create 1.3 branch commands.
 414 18:19:32 <garyo>	np, just ask.
 415 18:19:45 <Jason_at_Intel>	Steve: code review? good time to talk ?
 416 18:20:30 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  let's set up something for next week
 417 18:21:11 <Jason_at_Intel>	Steve.. I have a check in to sync with teh public drop yet... but that sounds good
 418 18:21:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	do we want anyone else to be part of this?
 419 18:21:30 <Jason_at_Intel>	such as Gary or Greg?
 420 18:21:58 <garyo>	If I can get out there I'd love to.  I don't get to travel much these days... hopefully spring will slow down @ work a little.
 421 18:22:05 <sgk>	garyo/GregNoel/bdbaddog:  any of you interested in participating in discussion of how to integrate Parts ?
 422 18:22:16 <bdbaddog>	for 3.0?
 423 18:22:27 <Jason_at_Intel>	or 2.x
 424 18:22:31 <sgk>	not sure, that needs discussion
 425 18:22:34 <bdbaddog>	:)
 426 18:22:37 <Jason_at_Intel>	depending on what people think
 427 18:22:39 <sgk>	what it should ultimately look like, time frame, etc.
 428 18:22:45 <garyo>	I am, especially the toolchain part of it.
 429 18:22:55 <garyo>	(or merge it w/ other toolchain ideas)
 430 18:22:59 <sgk>	right
 431 18:23:16 <bdbaddog>	is there a wiki page to bring me up to speed?
 432 18:23:19 <sgk>	k, i'm thinking we should structure it like a subproject for now?
 433 18:23:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	can i set up a phone conference for this.. talk is better for me
 434 18:24:05 <Jason_at_Intel>	I can set up one through work
 435 18:24:13 <Jason_at_Intel>	as this is a work task for me :-)
 436 18:23:45 <bdbaddog>	I hate talking.. IM is my friend.
 437 18:24:05 <GregNoel>	I hate talking AND typing.. Mail is my friend.
 438 18:24:13 <bdbaddog>	GN: :)
 439 18:23:31 <garyo>	skype is good
 440 18:24:17 <sgk>	i'm okay w/phone or skype so long as someone volunteers to take good notes
 441 18:24:27 <sgk>	the best thing about IM to me is the log
 442 18:24:33 <garyo>	That's a really good point.
 443 18:24:45 <Jason_at_Intel>	and that is fine.. but teh review will be slow and long
 444 18:25:01 <sgk>	we may want a mix of the two
 445 18:25:07 <garyo>	We need to prepare first so we can go faster.
 446 18:25:19 <sgk>	(garyo:  good point re: prep)
 447 18:25:10 <sgk>	how about start w/voice or skype
 448 18:25:35 <sgk>	since the first conversations will be a little more brainstorm-y
 449 18:26:02 <sgk>	and (maybe) transition to irc if we start settling on things and only have to iron out details
 450 18:26:01 <Jason_at_Intel>	this sound reasonable... get our ducks in a row...
 451 18:26:16 <garyo>	ok w/ me
 452 18:26:18 <sgk>	over time, i mean, not within one session
 453 18:26:46 <GregNoel>	(YouTube, anyone? {;-})
 454 18:26:59 <sgk>	okay, so the action item is that Jason_at_intel and I set up a time for a voice / skype chat next week
 455 18:27:07 <bdbaddog>	I'd say write something up on the wiki, give us a week on email list, then conf call.
 456 18:27:16 <sgk>	open invitation to the conf. call
 457 18:27:24 <garyo>	Sounds good.
 458 18:27:34 <sgk>	w/approval of course
 459 18:27:42 <sgk>	and we'll figure out the record-keeping by then
 460 18:27:51 <sgk>	and try to have some agenda ahead of time
 461 18:27:58 <bdbaddog>	k.
 462 18:28:13 <sgk>	based on that, i'm thinking it makes more sense for Jason_at_intel and i to organize next week
 463 18:28:22 <sgk>	with a target of the conf. call the week following
 464 18:28:23 <Jason_at_Intel>	SO steve you will give me an e-mail?
 465 18:28:38 <GregNoel>	Maybe agenda in a spreadsheet, so we can note/comment in advance?
 466 18:29:07 <sgk>	GregNoel:  good idea re: the spreadsheet, that's working well here
 467 18:28:52 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  send me something on Monday to get the ball rolling
 468 18:28:53 <garyo>	Jason: it's still @ parts.tigris.org/... right?
 469 18:29:02 <Jason_at_Intel>	yep
 470 18:29:15 <garyo>	I have a note I'm supposed to review ConfigToolsandChainNotes there
 471 18:31:13 <Jason_at_Intel>	ya... reading the document  i have would be nice start
 472 18:31:22 <Jason_at_Intel>	even if it a little out of date ina few places
 473 18:29:07 <Jason_at_Intel>	big update coming
 474 18:29:29 <Jason_at_Intel>	major reporting /coloring/logging overhaual
 475 18:29:29 <sgk>	Jason_at_intel:  is Parts attracting many users?
 476 18:29:50 <Jason_at_Intel>	I get odd mails here and there .. have a few bugs
 477 18:29:43 <garyo>	sgk: I'd suggest a Wave but not everyone has it or knows how to use it
 478 18:30:13 <GregNoel>	A wave would be good, actually, maybe for the comments and notes?
 479 18:30:05 <Jason_at_Intel>	It is beta.. or not 1.x yet... so people are holding off
 480 18:30:03 <bdbaddog>	I have wave.
 481 18:30:08 <bdbaddog>	can invite everyone else..
 482 18:30:09 <sgk>	garyo:  are you actively using wave?
 483 18:30:18 <garyo>	no, nobody else I know has it
 484 18:30:21 <sgk>	hmm
 485 18:30:29 <garyo>	a one-user wave is kinda lonely
 486 18:31:10 <GregNoel>	"Wave without a shore"
 487 18:31:03 <sgk>	i haven't had a good excuse to really try to use it
 488 18:31:37 <bdbaddog>	I don't see any of you guys in my wave contact list.
 489 18:32:04 <garyo>	how do I add you or vice versa?
 490 18:32:09 <Jason_at_Intel>	Is Wave any good?
 491 18:32:16 <bdbaddog>	I'm on as bdbaddog.at.gmail.com
 492 18:32:17 <garyo>	don't know yet
 493 18:32:29 <bdbaddog>	try adding me as a contact under wave.
 494 18:32:29 <Jason_at_Intel>	it seemed sort of in the works
 495 18:32:41 <garyo>	just did it
 496 18:32:52 <garyo>	I'm gary.oberbrunner.at.gmail.com
 497 18:32:54 <sgk>	bdbaddog:  have you been using it regularly?  how's the stability for you?  in which browser?
 498 18:33:04 <bdbaddog>	haven't been, Firefox..
 499 18:33:41 <bdbaddog>	Grey, Jason, Steven, do you all have wave accounts?
 500 18:34:08 <sgk>	i do on my google account but not my external gmail account
 501 18:34:18 <GregNoel>	Grey===Greg?  No, not a permanent one
 502 18:35:02 <bdbaddog>	GregNoel: oopsie...
 503 18:34:26 <Jason_at_Intel>	I need to be invited it says
 504 18:34:39 <bdbaddog>	email accouts for invites?
 505 18:35:00 *	sgk just realizes that his macbook pro is still running Firefox 2.0.x...  :-/
 506 18:35:01 <Jason_at_Intel>	jasonk512.at.aol.com
 507 18:35:19 <bdbaddog>	aol.. really? ;)
 508 18:35:52 <garyo>	aol omg!
 509 18:35:28 <Jason_at_Intel>	it for the junk mail
 510 18:35:26 <bdbaddog>	just sent an invite 2 u.
 511 18:35:29 <sgk>	sweet
 512 18:35:40 <bdbaddog>	Steven - do you have an acct?
 513 18:35:54 <sgk>	bdbaddog:  sure, add sguireknight.at.gmail.com
 514 18:36:20 <bdbaddog>	says "user does not have a wave account"
 515 18:36:32 <sgk>	oh, sorry, still need invite
 516 18:36:53 <bdbaddog>	done.
 517 18:36:57 <bdbaddog>	sgk: sent.
 518 18:37:08 <bdbaddog>	though it says the invites won't be sent immediately.
 519 18:37:30 <garyo>	I guess I don't have any invites to give out :-(
 520 18:37:34 <bdbaddog>	GregNoel: Did u neeed one?
 521 18:37:35 <GregNoel>	Try inviting gregnoel.at.tigris.org and see if it sends me one (eventually)...
 522 18:37:37 <bdbaddog>	I have 30 left.
 523 18:37:54 <bdbaddog>	GregNoel: added to invite list..
 524 18:37:58 <bdbaddog>	29 left.
 525 18:38:19 <garyo>	cool, this should be fun.  we'll learn something anyway.
 526 18:38:27 <bdbaddog>	k. I'm outta here for tonight. will be interesting to see if wave is useful for this.
 527 18:38:41 <garyo>	yup, me too, have to find out who won in MA special election.
 528 18:39:01 <bdbaddog>	GregNoel: Let Steven and/or  I know the dates you'll be up if you'd like to get together when you're up..
 529 18:39:22 <GregNoel>	bdbaddog, wilco
 530 18:39:03 <Jason_at_Intel>	so have i been added?
 531 18:39:07 *	sgk gets a shoeshine while waiting for the invite to show up
 532 18:39:47 <bdbaddog>	Gnight all!
 533 18:39:56 <sgk>	bdbaddog:  good night, thanx for the checkpoints
 534 18:40:14 <Jason_at_Intel>	bddaddog: night!
 535 18:40:23 <garyo>	see you folks on the ML...
 536 18:40:26 *	GregNoel has new mail...
 537 18:41:18 <GregNoel>	Hey, Rob is still around; he just corrected that spelling error
 538 18:41:40 <garyo>	GregNoel: good to know.
 539 18:41:54 <garyo>	anyway, time for bed I guess, here on the benighted east coast.
 540 18:42:18 <garyo>	take care folks, see you soon
 541 18:42:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	if you get a chance gary.. read that document :-)
 542 18:42:25 *	garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has left #scons
 543 18:42:46 <sgk>	good night.  Geaux Saints!
 544 18:43:22 <Jason_at_Intel>	Night all.. till next time
 545 18:43:50 <GregNoel>	No invitation...  I'll keep an eye out.
 546 18:43:51 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]")
 547 18:43:57 <GregNoel>	G'night all.
 548 18:46:39 *	You have been marked as being away
 549 18:49:33 *	loonycyborg has quit ("Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz")
 550 18:49:45 *	sgk (n=sgk@c-71-204-129-67.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has left #scons
 551 18:51:22 *	bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-11-120.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has left #scons
 552 

BugParty/IrcLog2010-01-19 (last edited 2010-01-20 12:09:53 by ip68-7-77-81)