(07:42:08 PM) The topic for #scons is: SCons | building software, better | http://www.scons.org | next bug triage party is Tue 2 Mar 2010 17h00 US/Pacific
(07:43:00 PM) unlink [~unlink@unaffiliated/unlink] entered the room.
(07:53:29 PM) Jason_at_Intel [~chatzilla@] entered the room.
(07:53:53 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Hello
(07:54:14 PM) loonycyborg: hi
(07:55:03 PM) garyo: Hi guys
(07:55:37 PM) Jason_at_Intel: big list of bugs
(07:55:57 PM) Jason_at_Intel: I still can't edit it :-(
(07:56:00 PM) garyo: yes, reminds me of the old days.
(07:56:03 PM) garyo: :-(
(07:56:34 PM) Jason_at_Intel: well 1.3 is out
(07:56:42 PM) garyo: jason: I used to have that problem too, not sure why it stopped happening for me. Did you follow the invite link on the BugParty/ReadWrite page?
(07:56:55 PM) Jason_at_Intel: we are waiting for 2.0 and we plan to upgrade to that version at work
(07:57:00 PM) garyo: Yes, 1.3 seems to be doing fine -- a couple of bugs reported against it but nothing serious so far.
(07:57:21 PM) garyo: Greg's been an absolute machine, getting the 2.0 python-version fixers in.
(07:57:48 PM) garyo: Tons of changes; check the trunk out.
(07:57:49 PM) Jason_at_Intel: I have seen alot of python based update coming from him
(07:58:23 PM) bdbaddog [~bdeegan@adsl-71-131-5-224.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net] entered the room.
(07:58:24 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Saw a few items i think i should do in Parts as well when using python
(07:58:25 PM) garyo: How's things with you, Sergey?
(07:58:31 PM) garyo: Hi Bill!
(07:58:36 PM) bdbaddog: Good evening!
(07:59:12 PM) garyo: Greg may or may not join us; I hope Steven will though.
(07:59:47 PM) bdbaddog: k.
(08:00:04 PM) sgk [~sgk@nat/google/x-iokzizbssmtgctut] entered the room.
(08:00:20 PM) garyo: And here's Steven now I think.
(08:00:21 PM) sgk: hey all
(08:00:23 PM) garyo: Hi Steven!
(08:00:32 PM) Jason_at_Intel: hi steve!
(08:00:34 PM) garyo: We have a good crew tonight
(08:00:47 PM) sgk: unfortunately, i'm still in the office and have a five minute walk to the shuttle today
(08:00:58 PM) sgk: so i'll need an intermission in about 15 minutes
(08:01:06 PM) sgk: hey Jason_at_Intel
(08:01:11 PM) sgk: sorry I've been so uncommunicative
(08:01:24 PM) sgk: not that it's a big help, but you're not the only one... :-/
(08:01:25 PM) Jason_at_Intel: no problem.. been busy
(08:01:41 PM) garyo: me too
(08:01:51 PM) garyo: but at least 1.3 is out & doing well.
(08:02:01 PM) sgk: yep, thanks to all of you guys for the work on it
(08:02:02 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Alright... i can edit it :-)
(08:02:08 PM) bdbaddog: got 1 VC related bug to be patched..
(08:02:16 PM) garyo: Shall we get going? I'll do the recording this week.
(08:02:43 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: yes, I saw that. And one other thing too I think, on tonight's list.
(08:03:17 PM) sgk: sure, let's dive in
(08:04:03 PM) garyo: ok, 2572 then
(08:04:16 PM) garyo: consensus invalid.
(08:04:23 PM) garyo: ?
(08:04:24 PM) sgk: done
(08:04:25 PM) garyo: ok
(08:04:34 PM) sgk: he can reopen if he has a use case
(08:04:48 PM) garyo: 2576
(08:04:50 PM) sgk: 2576: no progress, still on my plate
(08:05:10 PM) garyo: ok, continue to defer.
(08:05:15 PM) garyo: 2577
(08:05:24 PM) sgk: consensus 2.x p3
(08:05:30 PM) sgk: +subst
(08:05:50 PM) garyo: ok, makes sense.
(08:05:56 PM) garyo: done.
(08:06:03 PM) garyo: 2578
(08:06:18 PM) sgk: consensus 2.x p3 garyo
(08:06:21 PM) garyo: I'll take this, have Lukas bring his win32 instlaler up to date
(08:06:22 PM) sgk: (thnx)
(08:06:24 PM) garyo: done.
(08:06:38 PM) sgk: 2580
(08:06:41 PM) sgk: consensus 2.x p3
(08:06:47 PM) garyo: 2.x p3 +Easy?
(08:07:01 PM) sgk: should we start trying to assign 2.x issues now that 1.3.0 is out?
(08:07:13 PM) sgk: i.e., can we still get away with leaving them unassigned?
(08:07:23 PM) sgk: agree w/+Easy
(08:07:33 PM) garyo: You're probably right. Otherwise they won't get done.
(08:07:46 PM) garyo: Volunteers?
(08:07:49 PM) sgk: yeah, we've already got a big backlog of to-be-assigned 2.x issues
(08:08:18 PM) garyo: I think we have been assigning 2.1 items though, so at least we should get through that.
(08:08:22 PM) sgk: well, now that i've raised the issue, i'll backtrack a little on this
(08:08:37 PM) sgk: absent a volunteer, I'm okay leaving it +Easy
(08:08:51 PM) garyo: We'll need to reprioritize all the 2.x issues I think, or at least assign & review.
(08:09:05 PM) garyo: re: +Easy, I think easy ones are OK to not assign for now.
(08:09:06 PM) sgk: right, that'll probably be the first meeting after 2.0 is out
(08:09:10 PM) sgk: agree
(08:09:38 PM) garyo: done for now then. 2582?
(08:10:18 PM) sgk: agree w/p4
(08:10:29 PM) Jason_at_Intel: +1
(08:10:36 PM) sgk: 3.x? seems like 2.x is full enough
(08:10:43 PM) garyo: 3.x p4 unassigned then.
(08:11:02 PM) sgk: done
(08:11:06 PM) garyo: 2583
(08:11:35 PM) sgk: consensus 2.x p4
(08:11:50 PM) garyo: how about 3.x p4 instead?
(08:11:50 PM) sgk: hmm, let's say for tonight it's still okay to leave 2.x unassigned
(08:12:03 PM) sgk: ...or i was about to say, how about 3.x p4... :-)
(08:12:09 PM) garyo: :-)
(08:12:11 PM) sgk: 3.x p4
(08:12:21 PM) garyo: all agree? done then.
(08:12:26 PM) sgk: if it's not urgent enough to attract a volunteer, 3.x is fine
(08:12:34 PM) garyo: 2584: dup 1516
(08:12:38 PM) sgk: (amazing how 3.x doesn't feel so distant now that 1.3.0 is out)
(08:12:43 PM) sgk: 2584: done
(08:13:00 PM) sgk: 2585: garyo++
(08:13:11 PM) garyo: 2586: regression, 1.3.1
(08:13:21 PM) sgk: yep
(08:13:34 PM) garyo: I'm looking at his patch in 2595
(08:13:59 PM) garyo: Steven, I want to ask you about line 371 in Node/FS.py at some point, I don't get that line.
(08:14:44 PM) garyo: But for now let's move on to 2589
(08:14:49 PM) sgk: okay
(08:14:54 PM) sgk: was just looking at hist 2595 patch
(08:15:10 PM) sgk: seems right, but treading lightly around cygwin's case sensitivity is wise
(08:15:24 PM) garyo: it all hinges on whether _my_normpath is really working right (hence my q re: line 371)
(08:15:42 PM) bdbaddog: there's also cygwin 1.5.x vs 1.7.x I think there are some diffs with case sensitivity
(08:15:52 PM) bdbaddog: though 1.7.x is the "new" and 1.5.x is deprecated.
(08:15:54 PM) garyo: I guess I should just trust that it's OK or more stuff would be broken.
(08:16:23 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: are you talking cygwin versions or python versions?
(08:16:30 PM) sgk: gotta cruise to the shuttle, should be back in 5-10 mins.
(08:16:32 PM) sgk left the room (quit: Quit: sgk).
(08:17:39 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: what do you make of ... if os.path.normcase("TeSt") == os.path.normcase("TeSt") ?
(08:18:03 PM) bdbaddog: cygwin versions
(08:18:06 PM) garyo: (or anyone else)
(08:18:18 PM) garyo: but doesn't that test always succeed no matter what?
(08:18:47 PM) garyo: oh wait -- I see it now, duh.
(08:19:03 PM) garyo: one's normcase, the other's normpath.
(08:19:08 PM) garyo: never mind :-/
(08:19:25 PM) bdbaddog: >>> if os.path.normcase("TeST") == os.path.normcase("TeST"):
(08:19:25 PM) bdbaddog: ... print "YES"
(08:19:25 PM) bdbaddog: ...
(08:19:25 PM) bdbaddog: YES
(08:19:25 PM) bdbaddog: >>> if os.path.normcase("TeSt") == os.path.normcase("TeSt"):
(08:19:25 PM) bdbaddog: ... print "YES"
(08:19:26 PM) bdbaddog: ...
(08:19:26 PM) bdbaddog: YES
(08:19:27 PM) bdbaddog: >>> if os.path.normcase("TeSt") == os.path.normcase("TeST"):
(08:19:27 PM) bdbaddog: ... print "YES"
(08:19:28 PM) bdbaddog: ...
(08:19:52 PM) garyo: So now I think his patch is fine. I'll integrate it for 1.3.1.
(08:20:03 PM) bdbaddog: where are we putting those patches?
(08:20:34 PM) garyo: I vote for branching 1.3.1 off of 1.3's tag and putting things there, then merging back to trunk later.
(08:20:59 PM) garyo: The release procedure will be a little different from usual since it won't be on the release branch though.
(08:22:20 PM) garyo: seem ok to you all?
(08:22:37 PM) Jason_at_Intel: I don't have any issues with it
(08:22:45 PM) bdbaddog: what's the path for the 1.3.x and should we make a checkpoint tree for 1.3.x as well?
(08:23:33 PM) sgk [~sgk@nat/google/x-xlqjvvxeqxftuvnm] entered the room.
(08:23:35 PM) garyo: My opinion is no checkpoints for patch releases. They're supposed to be small and well-contained.
(08:23:40 PM) garyo: Hi again Steven.
(08:24:04 PM) garyo: Steven, are you OK with branching 1.3.1 off of 1.3's tag and putting things there, then merging back to trunk later?
(08:24:04 PM) sgk_ [~sgk@] entered the room.
(08:24:20 PM) sgk_: okay, now i'm back
(08:24:30 PM) garyo: Steven, are you OK with branching 1.3.1 off of 1.3's tag and putting things there, then merging back to trunk later?
(08:24:51 PM) garyo: ... and doing the 1.3.1 release right on that branch (not the release branch)?
(08:24:54 PM) garyo: ... and no checkpoint?
(08:24:55 PM) sgk_: yeah, that sounds like how i'd do it
(08:25:00 PM) sgk_: yes
(08:25:05 PM) garyo: good.
(08:25:25 PM) garyo: ok, onward (as Greg would say). 2590
(08:25:29 PM) sgk_: checkpoint and release (+ trunk) in my mind are collectively the main development+release line
(08:25:31 PM) bdbaddog: I'm not sure I agree. any numbered release should havea checkpoint right?
(08:25:44 PM) sgk_: i'm agnostic about whether you choose to checkpoint it first
(08:25:54 PM) sgk_: but the checkpoint would come off the 1.3 branch
(08:26:04 PM) bdbaddog: yes. agreed 1.3 branch
(08:26:22 PM) garyo: I'm OK w/ that too, checkpoint first.
(08:26:23 PM) sgk_: in other words, current "checkpoint" and "release" would be more accurately named "trunk-checkpoint" and "trunk-release"
(08:26:29 PM) sgk_: imho
(08:26:35 PM) bdbaddog: yes
(08:26:53 PM) garyo: I was just trying to take a shortcut I guess -- checkpoint is safer.
(08:26:55 PM) sgk_: in general, a checkpoint is probably more correct
(08:26:56 PM) bdbaddog: or just delete contents of checkpoint and make checkpoint/trunk checkpoint/1.3.x
(08:27:11 PM) sgk_: yeah, safer
(08:27:33 PM) sgk_: but i'm okay with arguments that skipping the checkpoint might be okay in specific circumstances
(08:28:02 PM) garyo: ok, but no huge hurry in this case so ckpoint is ok?
(08:28:19 PM) bdbaddog: k. so I'll go ahead and delete checkpoint/* and create checkpoint/trunk and checkpoint/1.3.x
(08:28:19 PM) sgk left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
(08:28:31 PM) sgk_: right
(08:28:31 PM) sgk_ is now known as sgk
(08:28:42 PM) sgk: wth?
(08:28:46 PM) sgk: am i still on?
(08:28:54 PM) garyo: hi, I can see you
(08:29:02 PM) sgk: oh, i see, i was sgk_ for a bit there
(08:29:26 PM) sgk: it just cut me back to the registered nick
(08:29:30 PM) garyo: 2590: I'm working with the OP, I'll take it until I can mark it invalid :-)
(08:29:58 PM) garyo: 2591
(08:30:16 PM) garyo: 3.x p4?
(08:30:40 PM) bdbaddog: 2.x p4
(08:30:59 PM) garyo: ok, 2.x p4s will get pushed to 3.x anyway IMHO :-) :-)
(08:31:01 PM) sgk: of doom
(08:31:18 PM) sgk: again: gah, beach ball of doom...
(08:31:24 PM) sgk: laptop froze up there for a while
(08:31:40 PM) bdbaddog: :)
(08:31:53 PM) bdbaddog: yeah probably, but if we can do it..
(08:31:55 PM) garyo: ok, 2591: 2.x p4
(08:32:11 PM) garyo: 2592
(08:32:50 PM) garyo: Steven wants 2.x p4, I'll go with that
(08:32:54 PM) bdbaddog: +1
(08:33:15 PM) Jason_at_Intel: +1
(08:33:19 PM) garyo: ok, done.
(08:33:33 PM) garyo: 2593
(08:34:02 PM) sgk left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer).
(08:34:34 PM) garyo: Steven's got laptop problems.
(08:34:36 PM) sgk_ [~sgk@] entered the room.
(08:34:39 PM) bdbaddog: k.
(08:34:49 PM) bdbaddog: or googly bus net problemos
(08:35:27 PM) garyo: 2593 really wants periodic saving of the .sconsign file, which I like.
(08:35:40 PM) bdbaddog: k. 3.0 p4 ?
(08:35:41 PM) sgk_ left the room.
(08:36:32 PM) garyo: I guess so. If people want it sooner they can vote it up (not that we check the votes that often)
(08:36:56 PM) bdbaddog: yup. or if someone gets motivated to implement
(08:38:28 PM) garyo: sgk's gone again. Let's say 2593 3.0 p4.
(08:38:33 PM) garyo: 2594
(08:39:05 PM) garyo: Looks like Steven says research sk, who am I to argue?
(08:39:12 PM) bdbaddog: +1
(08:39:35 PM) garyo: 2595 is the patch for 2586
(08:39:55 PM) garyo: 2596: doc anytime sgk
(08:40:22 PM) garyo: 2597 invalid, but Jason says doc could be better
(08:40:44 PM) Jason_at_Intel: ya.. a number of people mess this up
(08:40:46 PM) sgk [~sgk@] entered the room.
(08:40:48 PM) garyo: Jason: can you suggest some text? Email it to me if you want.
(08:41:06 PM) sgk: had to reboot; hopefully i'm really back now
(08:41:12 PM) garyo: I'm always up for better doc and error handling.
(08:41:16 PM) Jason_at_Intel: well I think people read this section in the man page
(08:41:42 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Builder calls support a chdir keyword argument that specifies that the Builder's action(s) should be executed after changing directory. If the chdir argument is a string or a directory Node, scons will change to the specified directory. If the chdir is not a string or Node and is non-zero, then scons will change to the target file's directory.
(08:41:44 PM) Jason_at_Intel: ...
(08:41:50 PM) bdbaddog: ANyway to detect chdir and -j and spit out a warning?
(08:41:55 PM) Jason_at_Intel: does not say anything about -j
(08:42:08 PM) Jason_at_Intel: I like that
(08:42:25 PM) Jason_at_Intel: detect -j > 1 and warn is chdir is used
(08:42:28 PM) sgk: a warning sounds good
(08:42:30 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: that would be even better, but at least we can update the doc easily
(08:42:53 PM) garyo: I'll update this ticket to mention all the above. Steven, can I assign it to you to add the warning?
(08:43:15 PM) sgk: sure
(08:43:28 PM) garyo: ok, 2.x p3? sgk
(08:43:42 PM) sgk: yeah, 2.x p3 is fine
(08:43:46 PM) sgk: so we're up to 2597?
(08:44:02 PM) garyo: that's it.
(08:44:08 PM) sgk: awesome
(08:44:25 PM) sgk: any things from while i was away that need more discussion?
(08:45:03 PM) garyo: we assigned you the ones you volunteered for: 2594
(08:45:11 PM) Jason_at_Intel: The only item i have i that i need to catch up with you offline to start Part review stuff
(08:45:13 PM) garyo: and 2596
(08:45:53 PM) garyo: Jason: I owe you a walkthrough of parts too.
(08:46:05 PM) sgk: Jason_at_Intel: sounds good, as always the best bet is to drive it forwarded by scheduling something
(08:46:08 PM) garyo: What about release planning? 1.3.1 checkpoint "soon", right?
(08:46:26 PM) bdbaddog: Sure. do we have a path for the 1.3.x branch?
(08:46:40 PM) sgk: yeah, bdbaddog, anyone owe you fixes or anything before 1.3.1?
(08:46:46 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Can i setup a hour or two phone conference with you guy two? to get started?
(08:46:52 PM) sgk: like what path in the repository?
(08:46:55 PM) garyo: Bill: I can create that if you want, how about branches/1.3.1?
(08:47:05 PM) bdbaddog: branches/1.3.x
(08:47:07 PM) bdbaddog: or 1.3
(08:47:14 PM) sgk: branches/1.3 ?
(08:47:35 PM) bdbaddog: so that'd be the 1.3's series "trunk" equivalent?
(08:47:43 PM) sgk: sure
(08:47:49 PM) sgk: although i'd be okay with branches/1.3.x too
(08:47:53 PM) sgk: either one is in the ballpark
(08:48:02 PM) garyo: is a branch "for" a release or "from" it? I like 1.3.x better than 1.3.
(08:48:30 PM) bdbaddog: branch is for working on, -> checkpoint or -> tags/1.3.1
(08:49:16 PM) garyo: Either's fine, I'm just nitpicking: do you name it based on where it came from (1.3) or where it's going (1.3.x)?
(08:49:43 PM) sgk: i think of it as where it came frame
(08:50:01 PM) sgk: "trunk" suggests that to me (things come off the trunk)
(08:50:01 PM) bdbaddog: I think 1.3 as in the series
(08:50:19 PM) sgk: came from
(08:50:24 PM) garyo: ok, majority rules, call it branches/1.3.
(08:51:00 PM) garyo: And 2.0 checkpoint, we're moving toward that, right?
(08:51:28 PM) bdbaddog: sure. I think i can wipe out checkpoint/* and create checkpoint/trunk and checkpoint/1.3
(08:51:47 PM) bdbaddog: and then is the content in trunk now that we want in the first 2.0 chekcpoint?
(08:51:52 PM) garyo: Ah, I see what you mean now.
(08:52:18 PM) garyo: As for 2.0 checkpoint, we need to wait for word from Greg, but that should come soon I hope.
(08:52:25 PM) sgk: hmm, i just realized i'm not sure
(08:52:45 PM) sgk: trunk has lots and lots of greg's 3.x fixer stuff in it
(08:53:01 PM) sgk: i didn't have it in mind that 2.0 would have this much actual code change
(08:53:09 PM) sgk: even if none of them are (in theory) functional differences
(08:53:22 PM) sgk: but in practice, i guess itshouldn't hurt anything
(08:53:48 PM) sgk: so it sounds like the near term roadmap is:
(08:53:54 PM) sgk: checkpoint for 1.3.1
(08:53:58 PM) sgk: 1.3.1
(08:54:02 PM) sgk: checkpoint for 2.0
(08:54:09 PM) sgk: 2.0
(08:54:09 PM) sgk: yes?
(08:54:15 PM) bdbaddog: sounds good.
(08:54:17 PM) garyo: +1
(08:54:33 PM) bdbaddog: once the rleease branch is there, I"ll check in my patch, Garyo, lemme know when you'res is ready?
(08:54:33 PM) sgk: what's needed for 1.3.1 checkpoint?
(08:54:33 PM) garyo: (repeat checkpoints as needed of course)
(08:54:42 PM) sgk: yes
(08:54:51 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: I'll make the branch and let you know.
(08:55:05 PM) garyo: sgk: just two patches so far. Both minor.
(08:55:19 PM) garyo: We could also hold it a week and wait for more...
(08:55:39 PM) bdbaddog: the VC one's not so minor. it throws an exception.
(08:55:41 PM) sgk: okay, so next action items are: 1) garyo branch; 2) bdbaddog check in; 3) cut checkpoint ?
(08:56:05 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: true, if you have Express. sgk: I agree.
(08:56:07 PM) sgk: (apologies if I'm being pedantic, i just want to make sure i understand)
(08:56:26 PM) garyo: bdbaddog: can you do the checkpoint release?
(08:56:36 PM) bdbaddog: yup, no problmeo, sounds good. yes can do release
(08:56:46 PM) garyo: excellent.
(08:57:22 PM) sgk: awesome. target date?
(08:57:26 PM) garyo: that's all on my list. I'll update the bug list and enter this log in the usual place, since Greg's not here.
(08:57:36 PM) bdbaddog: sounds good.
(08:57:51 PM) garyo: I'll make the branch & my patch in the 24 hrs.
(08:58:04 PM) bdbaddog: k.
(08:58:53 PM) sgk: very good, many thanks
(08:59:00 PM) sgk: i'm going to keep the fixer stuff for 2.0 moving forward
(08:59:04 PM) sgk: as well as doc updates
(08:59:17 PM) garyo: good - I see a few fixers still on the 2.0 list.
(08:59:37 PM) bdbaddog: k. I guess float to the release list when its time for a 2.0 checkpoint?
(08:59:39 PM) sgk: I'll try to land that issue about Command() not being documented in the builder list
(09:00:06 PM) sgk: i expanded it to include documenting the global functions and Environment methods in the homebrew .xml format
(09:00:23 PM) sgk: with the side benefit of having all those show up in a user's guide appendix
(09:00:43 PM) garyo: Very nice.
(09:00:43 PM) sgk: yeah, I'll try to keep everyone posted re: 2.0
(09:01:02 PM) Jason_at_Intel: cool
(09:01:11 PM) bdbaddog: sounds good.
(09:01:39 PM) garyo: ok, sounds great -- bye for now, if that's all
(09:02:04 PM) bdbaddog: k. l8r all
(09:02:10 PM) sgk: one last bit
(09:02:18 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Gary: steve: I will catch up with you in e-mail
(09:02:19 PM) garyo: Jason: I'll get you a writeup first, then let's do a call.
(09:02:19 PM) sgk: here's a tree of the dependencies for greg's fixer work:
(09:02:20 PM) sgk: http://scons.tigris.org/issues/showdependencytree.cgi?id=2345
(09:02:40 PM) Jason_at_Intel: ok
(09:02:56 PM) sgk: the guy's did some heroic work prepping for this
(09:03:00 PM) Jason_at_Intel: any ETA on the write up?
(09:03:01 PM) sgk: done
(09:03:03 PM) garyo: cool, looks like a lot of work has gone into that.
(09:03:09 PM) garyo: Jason: this weekend for sure.
(09:03:23 PM) Jason_at_Intel: ok sounds great!
(09:03:57 PM) Jason_at_Intel: I will wait for that, and go from there
(09:03:59 PM) sgk: thanks everyone
(09:04:23 PM) Jason_at_Intel: Till next time!
(09:04:29 PM) garyo: by 4 now
(09:04:35 PM) sgk left the room.
(09:04:38 PM) bdbaddog left the room.
(09:04:40 PM) Jason_at_Intel left the room (quit: Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]).

BugParty/IrcLog2010-03-30 (last edited 2010-04-01 12:25:01 by GaryOberbrunner)