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 16:03:04 *	techtonik (~chatzilla@mm-127-247-57-86.leased.line.mgts.by) has joined #SCONS
   2 16:31:51 *	garyo (~garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #SCONS
   3 16:47:50 *	bdbaddog (~chatzilla@207.88.181.2.ptr.us.xo.net) has joined #SCONS
   4 17:00:39 *	sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-bfuzncsvocbkaddk) has joined #SCONS
   5 17:00:48 <garyo>	Hi guys
   6 17:00:53 *	You are no longer marked as being away
   7 17:00:53 <sgk>	hello hello
   8 17:00:57 *	GregNoel is here
   9 17:01:07 <garyo>	Hi Greg
  10 17:01:14 <GregNoel>	Hello, everyone; who all is here?
  11 17:01:29 *	sgk applauds GregNoel for getting 2.0.0 release
  12 17:01:30 <garyo>	Looks like me, sgk, Bill, you
  13 17:01:32 <sgk>	d
  14 17:01:36 <bdbaddog>	I'm here.
  15 17:01:58 *	Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@12.18.240.224) has joined #SCONS
  16 17:02:00 <garyo>	Yes -- kudos to both Greg and Bill for getting through a lot of checkpoints and releases recently!
  17 17:02:04 <garyo>	Hi Jason
  18 17:02:15 <bdbaddog>	Garyo: Thanks.
  19 17:02:17 <Jason_at_Intel>	HI all
  20 17:02:34 <bdbaddog>	I guess 1.3.1 should go out soon. I'll get it done when I'm back from this conference.
  21 17:02:20 <GregNoel>	sgk, garyo, thanks.  We had a major earthquake leading to lots of network outages that made the process interesting...
  22 17:02:29 <sgk>	yow
  23 17:02:37 <garyo>	Oh yeah, I heard about that -- no major damage though?
  24 17:03:10 <GregNoel>	garyo, not to us.  A picture fell off a shelf and broke the glass.
  25 17:03:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	?
  26 17:03:37 <garyo>	I thought people in California didn't put things on shelves :-/
  27 17:03:45 <garyo>	(earthquake, Jason)
  28 17:03:55 <Jason_at_Intel>	ahh
  29 17:04:07 <GregNoel>	There are bookcases in our library.
  30 17:04:32 <garyo>	So wow, 2.0 is out and all kinds of stuff is now unblocked -- meaning I have to get to all those things I said I'd do post 2.0! :-) :-)
  31 17:04:30 <GregNoel>	Anyway, are we ready to go?
  32 17:04:36 <garyo>	Yes, I'm ready.
  33 17:04:41 <sgk>	ready
  34 17:04:46 <GregNoel>	2634, wontfix?
  35 17:05:03 <sgk>	i can go there
  36 17:05:05 <garyo>	I'm ok w/ that, he'll reopen if needed
  37 17:05:14 <GregNoel>	done
  38 17:05:16 <GregNoel>	2636, more time?
  39 17:05:20 <garyo>	yes
  40 17:05:34 <sgk>	yes, revisit next bug party
  41 17:05:43 <GregNoel>	done
  42 17:05:45 <GregNoel>	2639, consensus 2.1 p3, but needs an owner.
  43 17:05:54 <sgk>	russel brought it up, right?
  44 17:06:21 *	sgk wishes that tigris.org's bug tracker had keyboard shortcuts
  45 17:06:30 <GregNoel>	{;-}
  46 17:06:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	loading spreadsheet.. but ready
  47 17:06:35 <garyo>	Maybe he'd do it.  Yes, he posted it.
  48 17:06:53 <garyo>	no wait, Steven did.
  49 17:07:33 <sgk>	yeah, i opened it to avoid another N emails where people debated whether or not an issue should be opened, and by whom
  50 17:06:53 <GregNoel>	Or how about techtonik?  He's interested in documentation.
  51 17:07:00 <garyo>	Greg: that's a good idea.
  52 17:07:27 <Jason_at_Intel>	anyone use the tiris ecplise of VS integration?
  53 17:07:54 <garyo>	jason: not me.
  54 17:08:06 <sgk>	if techtonik is interested, great
  55 17:08:13 <garyo>	OK, for 2639, assign to techtonik & see if he minds?
  56 17:08:19 <garyo>	Or ask first?
  57 17:08:27 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll ask him.  Is that the decision?
  58 17:08:32 <sgk>	yeah
  59 17:08:33 <garyo>	+1 from me
  60 17:08:45 <sgk>	and if he doesn't want it, then i'm okay with just giving it to Russel
  61 17:08:36 <GregNoel>	done
  62 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2640, consensus 2.1 p2 Greg, unless Gary restores his offer...  {;-}
  63 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2642, consensus 2.1 p3 Gary
  64 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2643, consensus 2.x p3 Gary (I'm neutral about coercion v. error)
  65 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	2644, Steven, I don't think an organized text file is more of a custom file format than a "standard" XML binary format; quite the reverse, in fact.  Besides, I'm leery of requiring another external package to diff XML when all the python versions we support have difflib for text.
  66 17:09:23 <sgk>	re: 2644:  okay, suit yourself
  67 17:09:26 <garyo>	2644, I don't have an opinion either way
  68 17:10:36 <bdbaddog>	+1 on not requiring more packages for developer.
  69 17:10:32 <garyo>	2645 I can do, if you don't mind me doing it blind (no Fortran) -- I'll just check with the OP.
  70 17:10:33 <GregNoel>	2645, consensus 2.1 p2, but needs an owner.
  71 17:11:01 <garyo>	I'll take it
  72 17:11:30 <GregNoel>	done
  73 17:11:33 <GregNoel>	2646, consensus invalid
  74 17:11:33 <GregNoel>	2647, Steven solved a nasty problem and checked in a fix, but should that fix be scheduled toward a release of 2.0.0.final.1, 2.0.1, or 2.1? I added a workaround to the issue that should work (Gary's suggestion of SideEffect() works perfectly), so if we deem that good, I vote for 2.1.
  75 17:11:59 <sgk>	what's the difference between 2.0.0.final.1 and 2.0.1 ?
  76 17:12:02 <sgk>	from a user perspective
  77 17:12:21 <GregNoel>	sgk, the former is a patch, the latter is a new release.
  78 17:12:41 <sgk>	and users need to know / care about that distinction because...?
  79 17:12:01 <bdbaddog>	Sideffect() is a workaround for the issue right?
  80 17:12:15 <Jason_at_Intel>	yep
  81 17:12:09 <garyo>	I vote for 2.1.  It's still a corner case.
  82 17:12:46 <Jason_at_Intel>	Well as a corner case i can't promote to Scons 1.2+ till it is in
  83 17:12:48 <bdbaddog>	post bugs, I think we need to discuss getting rid of the .final.
  84 17:12:50 <garyo>	Right, we shouldn't drop everything to release this fix basically.
  85 17:12:56 <GregNoel>	I'm seeing a consensus toward 2.1
  86 17:12:59 <Jason_at_Intel>	I have six products that broke cause of this
  87 17:13:16 <bdbaddog>	it's a regression right?
  88 17:13:21 <sgk>	yes, it worked in 1.2.0
  89 17:13:22 <bdbaddog>	2.0.1
  90 17:13:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	yep
  91 17:13:26 <GregNoel>	Jason_at_Intel, can you use SideEffect()?
  92 17:13:27 <garyo>	Hm, ok maybe it's an edge rather than a corner? :-)
  93 17:13:34 <sgk>	heh
  94 17:13:47 <bdbaddog>	we have a fix. 2.0.1, unless u think the fix might destability 2.0.0
  95 17:13:56 <bdbaddog>	destabilize that should be.
  96 17:14:12 <Jason_at_Intel>	Yes, i have people moving to it... but politics prevent a move to 2.0 cause of fear that something else if wrong
  97 17:14:22 <garyo>	I'm ok either way, just trying to reduce release churn so we can get some work done.
  98 17:14:38 <Jason_at_Intel>	I think that SideEffect is more correct in most of the cases this happens for me
  99 17:14:52 <garyo>	Jason: that's what I'd expect, given the testcase.
 100 17:15:02 <bdbaddog>	pushing the release button is all I have time for in the near future. so if I can get a handle on greg's changes I can do that.
 101 17:15:10 <Jason_at_Intel>	but the large products have 350 binaries in it
 102 17:15:29 <Jason_at_Intel>	so it hard to say that SideEffect will fix all cases developer have come up with
 103 17:16:11 <Jason_at_Intel>	we have some very cleaver people :-)
 104 17:16:10 <garyo>	If Bill's got time for a 2.0.1, I'm OK with that.  Is there anything else we should squeeze in?
 105 17:16:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	I can wait till 2.0.1
 106 17:16:29 <bdbaddog>	maybe any doc changes?
 107 17:16:29 <GregNoel>	Sounds to me that you should try to switch to SideEffect() and if it doesn't solve your problems, reopen the question.
 108 17:16:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	but i hope it is in 30 or so :-)
 109 17:16:42 <garyo>	30 what?
 110 17:16:48 <sgk>	yeah, doc changes:  i still owe a writeup on SConsignFile()
 111 17:16:53 <Jason_at_Intel>	30 days
 112 17:17:05 <garyo>	ok.  Yes, I owe some doc fixes too.
 113 17:17:08 <bdbaddog>	I also owe some doc work as well.
 114 17:17:10 <GregNoel>	also
 115 17:17:10 <garyo>	--warn in the UG I think.
 116 17:17:48 <garyo>	Steven, I sent you some doc a while ago, any opinion on where that could go?
 117 17:18:00 <sgk>	oh, right
 118 17:18:10 <sgk>	i vaguely remember looking at it and not having a good idea either
 119 17:18:14 <sgk>	same with SConsignFile
 120 17:18:30 <sgk>	if it's really homeless, putting it in the Misc chapter seems as good as any
 121 17:18:12 <GregNoel>	(I have a question about the doc work, too, but let's return to it later; resolve this issue first.)
 122 17:18:44 <garyo>	I'm hearing 2.0.1 for this issue.
 123 17:18:58 <sgk>	so 2.0.1 with a normal checkpoint cycle, right?
 124 17:19:06 <garyo>	Jason needs it, it's done, and Bill has time to push it out.
 125 17:19:08 <GregNoel>	I'd rather see if SideEffect() solves the problem.
 126 17:19:29 <garyo>	He should use SideEffect where possible anyway; it's more correct.
 127 17:19:39 <garyo>	Ties the dependency to the proper builder.
 128 17:19:34 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  what would give your user base the most confidence?
 129 17:19:44 <sgk>	knowing that there's a better solution in the current code base,
 130 17:19:56 <sgk>	or fixing this behavior with Depends()?
 131 17:19:42 <bdbaddog>	GregNoel: But is SideEffect() is a workaround?
 132 17:20:29 <garyo>	Depends() is weird in this case anyway.  It's brain-twisting that it even should work.
 133 17:20:31 <GregNoel>	Depends() is an accident; SideEffect() is really the right solution.
 134 17:20:49 <garyo>	(but I agree it should work.)
 135 17:20:36 <Jason_at_Intel>	I would say 2 things
 136 17:21:13 <Jason_at_Intel>	1) being backwards compatible.. so teh current build does not break ( minus stuff that is really broken)
 137 17:21:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	2) saying that something did not happen.. Scons is very silent on what it is doing
 138 17:21:23 <Jason_at_Intel>	 ie
 139 17:21:49 <Jason_at_Intel>	it does not say .. i am ignoring this node as it has no builders... did you mean SideEffect?
 140 17:21:50 <sgk>	garyo:  i kind of view it as Depends() should work on a file without a Builder just like it does on one with
 141 17:21:57 <sgk>	it's just that without a Builder, the build action is null
 142 17:22:20 <sgk>	but that may be because i've been brainwashed by the current implementation
 143 17:22:31 <garyo>	sgk: you're right, I'm kind of exaggerating.  But I think everyone's right:
 144 17:22:40 <Jason_at_Intel>	people get unhappy when Scons when they don't get why it will not build something as they expect
 145 17:22:43 <sgk>	shuttle real soon....
 146 17:22:40 <GregNoel>	sgk, then will you fix Alias() as well?  It has the same problem.
 147 17:22:56 <sgk>	GregNoel:  good point
 148 17:23:05 <sgk>	since this behavior is fresh in my mind, i'll take a look now
 149 17:22:55 <garyo>	Depends() should be made to work as it did, and Jason should use SideEffect where it's correct to do so.
 150 17:23:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	it is not me... but the developer i support :-)
 151 17:23:22 <sgk>	biab
 152 17:23:23 *	sgk has quit (Quit: sgk)
 153 17:23:30 <garyo>	Jason: yep
 154 17:23:40 <Jason_at_Intel>	ya the Alias() and Depends()
 155 17:23:43 <GregNoel>	brb
 156 17:23:44 <Jason_at_Intel>	I like that to be fixed
 157 17:24:02 <Jason_at_Intel>	it would allow the Make virtual node idea to work as people expect
 158 17:24:08 <garyo>	Jason: no doubt in anyone's mind they should work.
 159 17:24:54 <garyo>	But do we *need* to put out an extra release, with checkpoints and bla bla bla, for it?  Maybe... let me see how many 2.1 tickets we have.
 160 17:25:18 <Jason_at_Intel>	I know... the problem i get is I have some very passionate developer that go back and say " in my day.. this did not happen... and pigs flew"
 161 17:25:35 <bdbaddog>	I'm thinking since we'll be adding a lot into 2.1, that this bug fix should go without all that additional changes.
 162 17:25:45 <garyo>	OK, we have 68 tickets open for 2.1.  This is going to take a while.
 163 17:26:10 <garyo>	So maybe 2.0.1 is appropriate.
 164 17:27:09 <garyo>	whoa, 20 of the 2.1 issues are mine :-/
 165 17:27:33 <bdbaddog>	Yeah. I don't want to even look at that yet..:(
 166 17:27:56 <garyo>	You're OK, only 5.
 167 17:28:16 <GregNoel>	As I said before, Depends() is an accident; SideEffect() is really the right solution.  The regression should be fixed, but you should be using SideEffect().
 168 17:29:12 <garyo>	I think we all agree on that now.  But looking at the tix for 2.1, I think 2.0.1 is OK if Bill's up for it.
 169 17:29:40 <bdbaddog>	yup. so we do a checkpoint? and then 2weeks later 2.0.1 right?
 170 17:29:44 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 171 17:29:48 <bdbaddog>	this weekend is when I'll get to the build.
 172 17:30:18 <garyo>	Works for me; I should be able to get some doc in there too by then.
 173 17:30:32 *	Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@12.18.240.224) has joined #SCONS
 174 17:30:55 *	sgk (~sgk@67.218.105.226) has joined #SCONS
 175 17:31:07 <sgk>	am i back yet?  is this thing on?
 176 17:31:08 <GregNoel>	It could work.  It was surprisingly easy to cherry-pick individual changesets over via checkpoint.  But I'd oppose bringing over anything more.  (Well, maybe the doc.)
 177 17:31:37 <sgk>	what'd i miss?
 178 17:31:58 <Jason_at_Intel>	we agree that we have a lot of stuff to fix
 179 17:32:02 <bdbaddog>	2.0.1 with just that fix, checkpoint build this weekend, 2.0.1 2 weeks later.
 180 17:32:03 <garyo>	I think we're agreeing on 2.0.1 with a checkpoint first, including only this fix and some doc
 181 17:32:10 <bdbaddog>	yes. + doc.
 182 17:32:45 <GregNoel>	done
 183 17:32:22 <garyo>	(and that there are 68 tickets open for 2.1, 20 of which are mine, ack)
 184 17:32:27 <sgk>	okay
 185 17:32:48 <sgk>	(the other 48 are probably mine, given my track record... :-/)
 186 17:33:14 <garyo>	Actually a bunch are issues@scons which I don't understand
 187 17:33:43 <GregNoel>	sgk, 2.1 is scheduled for October, so you've got plenty of time... {;-}
 188 17:34:02 <garyo>	October 2009? :-)
 189 17:34:16 <garyo>	j/k
 190 17:34:20 <sgk>	garyo:  don't understand how they got that way?  I returned a whole bunch that were languishing with me
 191 17:34:25 <GregNoel>	garyo, probably +Easy that never got assigned.
 192 17:34:54 <garyo>	ok, sounds plausible
 193 17:35:01 <GregNoel>	garyo, no, October 2010, believe it or not; it's in the roadmap.
 194 17:35:26 <garyo>	excellent!
 195 17:35:51 *	sgk scores a point for garyo
 196 17:35:52 <garyo>	68 tickets in 4 months is doable I think.
 197 17:36:07 <sgk>	yep, sounds realistic
 198 17:35:51 <GregNoel>	OK, we seem to be agreed on that; resume the doc discussion?
 199 17:35:57 <garyo>	fine w/ me
 200 17:36:58 <GregNoel>	My question is where the command-line options live.  I was looking for a template to start with while I was waiting for the regression tests to finish and couldn't find one.
 201 17:38:13 <sgk>	in the User's Guide, they kind of just show up wherever it conceptually makes sense to introduce them
 202 17:38:17 *	sgk goes to look for an example
 203 17:38:31 <Jason_at_Intel>	the is a nice section in the man page
 204 17:38:52 <sgk>	example:  --tree= shows up in the troubleshooting section
 205 17:39:26 <sgk>	so it's a matter of thinking about where it makes logical sense to introduce the concept of "you can control warnings"
 206 17:40:10 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  I think I have --warn= and Gary has --checkdisk, but neither of them seem to have homes.
 207 17:40:32 <sgk>	there is a chapter that's nominally about controlling your build from the command line
 208 17:40:38 <sgk>	doc/user/command-line.{in,xml}
 209 17:40:57 *	GregNoel looks at it...
 210 17:40:59 <sgk>	but it's a little more about Options and stuff like that
 211 17:41:14 <sgk>	but maybe it provides a logical home anyway
 212 17:41:25 <sgk>	i could also see --warn= in the troubleshooting section
 213 17:41:52 <sgk>	i could see users ending up there if they ask themselves, "where do I find out how to get SCons to STFU"
 214 17:42:26 <garyo>	I agree -- the man page is where we put all the options together; the UG should be task-oriented.
 215 17:42:47 <GregNoel>	Yeah, either is a possibility; I was afraid I'd have to do an entire new page...
 216 17:44:02 <GregNoel>	Now that I have a clue, I'll be able to hunt down a few more examples.  Thanks.
 217 17:44:34 <sgk>	okay
 218 17:44:40 <sgk>	what else?
 219 17:44:44 <GregNoel>	Anything else?  There were some other things about doc before; are all of those answered?
 220 17:45:05 <bdbaddog>	.final ?
 221 17:45:20 <GregNoel>	What about it?
 222 17:45:37 <garyo>	Can we omit it, per discussion on the ml today?
 223 17:45:39 <bdbaddog>	Are we going to drop it and have 2.0.1 and 2.0.0,etc for the actual release?
 224 17:45:44 <sgk>	yeah, i was surprised to see that show up in the actual package name
 225 17:45:45 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 226 17:45:49 <bdbaddog>	well not 2.0.0 since it's out
 227 17:45:55 <sgk>	right
 228 17:46:45 <GregNoel>	I noticed that as the release was going out, but I didn't have time to do anything about it then.
 229 17:47:28 <garyo>	ok, for 2.0.1 then, we're all agreed?
 230 17:47:30 <GregNoel>	There's a distinction between the _package_ name (*.final.*) and the _release_ name (2.0.0).
 231 17:47:50 <GregNoel>	We need to figure out which is used where.
 232 17:48:00 <sgk>	GregNoel:  conceptual distinction, or just in the way I implemented the SConstruct build long long ago?
 233 17:48:09 <GregNoel>	Yes
 234 17:48:25 <sgk>	which?
 235 17:48:28 <sgk>	let me ask another way
 236 17:48:54 <sgk>	we all agree the release should ideally be named 2.0.1, not 2.0.1.final, yes?
 237 17:48:59 *	Jason_at_Intel_ (~chatzilla@12.18.240.224) has joined #SCONS
 238 17:49:00 *	Jason_at_Intel_ is now known as Jason_at_Intel
 239 17:49:22 <bdbaddog>	yes
 240 17:49:33 <GregNoel>	Yes, but when one refers to the package, it has the suffix.  They're different.
 241 17:49:53 <sgk>	that's the next question
 242 17:50:06 <GregNoel>	That is, you should download 2.0.1.final.0, but it should install 2.0.1.
 243 17:50:12 <sgk>	GregNoel:  you're saying that you think the package should be named scons-2.0.1.final.0.tar.gz ?
 244 17:50:19 <GregNoel>	Yes
 245 17:50:34 <sgk>	why?  i don't know of another project that does that
 246 17:50:51 <sgk>	does it buy us anything other than the ordering?  or is that the main motivator
 247 17:50:57 <GregNoel>	Because it sorts alphabetically.
 248 17:51:48 <bdbaddog>	Doesn't seem to be a problem for other projects, so why be diffferent?
 249 17:51:48 <sgk>	i personally don't find that a compelling reason to make users map between the release number and a package with a different name
 250 17:52:03 <garyo>	Irrespective of anything else, I think the download file of 2.0.1 should be called scons-2.0.1.tar.gz unless we have a really good reason.
 251 17:52:11 <bdbaddog>	concur
 252 17:52:38 <garyo>	Checkpoints and betas should identify themselves as such though, just as we've been doing.
 253 17:52:45 <GregNoel>	Well, I've missed final releases because it was buried in the list of alpha, beta, ... releases, so I have personal motivation if nothing else.
 254 17:53:14 <garyo>	Still, look around -- nobody else calls their finals final.
 255 17:53:39 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 256 17:54:17 <GregNoel>	I could be persuaded, but I'd still worry about it.
 257 17:54:08 <garyo>	Is either way technically more difficult than the other?
 258 17:54:29 <sgk>	i don't think so, but i haven't looked at that code in a while
 259 17:55:21 <GregNoel>	garyo, yes; update-release-info has to know which values to update; it's tricky for the case of pure text files with no hints.
 260 17:54:42 <sgk>	GregNoel:  still worry about what aspect of it?
 261 17:56:14 <GregNoel>	sgk, people picking the last-listed (or first-listed) simply because they missed the actual release in the middle.
 262 17:56:49 <GregNoel>	Look at the RPM labeling to avoid that problem.
 263 17:57:24 <sgk>	?
 264 17:57:26 <garyo>	Yes, rpm solves that cleverly.  But it's not purely alphabetical; it sorts the separate fields.
 265 17:57:23 <bdbaddog>	We can go non-final and see if we get any user issues..
 266 17:57:34 <bdbaddog>	if not we stay that way, if so we revisit.
 267 17:57:41 <garyo>	There's no good way if sourceforge is purely alpha.
 268 17:58:26 <GregNoel>	I'm certainly open to suggestions.
 269 17:58:18 <garyo>	I think people will figure it out.
 270 17:58:51 <GregNoel>	garyo, _I_ missed it, more than once.  And I think I'm brighter than the average downloader.
 271 17:58:55 <garyo>	I think in the absence of brilliant new methods we should just do what everyone else does.  Innovate in the software, not the naming.
 272 17:58:59 <bdbaddog>	So I'm looking at the SF ui now. newest files are at the top.
 273 17:59:35 <garyo>	That would be sensible...
 274 17:59:38 <bdbaddog>	Highlighted in green with a table tile of "newest files"
 275 17:59:49 <bdbaddog>	then a section labelled "all files"
 276 17:59:59 <bdbaddog>	I think we'll be fine with vanilla 2.0.1 labelling.
 277 18:02:08 <GregNoel>	OK, identify which cases need the full label and which need the short label, and I'll see what I can do with update-release-info.
 278 18:02:35 <garyo>	Greg's right that in some cases it will probably not sort ideally.  But I think it's such a minor thing, and the ".final.0" sticks out like a sore thumb to me; for me it's mostly an aesthetic thing.
 279 18:02:40 <sgk>	alpha, beta, candidate all seem okay with the full label
 280 18:03:30 <sgk>	as a naive user, any added word (or abbreviation like "rc") is a flag to me that it's not a production release
 281 18:04:28 <bdbaddog>	so are we doign alpha and candidate now? or just alpha, beta, and released (where there's no additioinal text for the released version)
 282 18:05:00 <GregNoel>	Ah, bad timing; I'm called to dinner.  I'll collect my thoughts and continue the thread on the mailing list.
 283 18:05:23 <sgk>	darn, i had a testing topic i wanted to talk about
 284 18:05:30 <sgk>	okay, i can shift that to the mailing list, too
 285 18:05:40 <bdbaddog>	free beers at vendor party are waiting for me...
 286 18:06:04 <GregNoel>	I can stall a few minutes for another topic, but this one is drawing out.  Is it quick?
 287 18:06:11 <sgk>	probably not
 288 18:06:37 <GregNoel>	A quick general statement of the issue?
 289 18:06:40 <sgk>	trying to decide how to start converting the tests
 290 18:06:55 <sgk>	to the new sconstest- prefix idea
 291 18:06:23 <bdbaddog>	float it to release or dev mailing list?
 292 18:07:15 <GregNoel>	Ah.  Definitely not quick.  Mailing list it is.  We'd need Dirk for it anyway.
 293 18:07:23 <sgk>	yep, good point
 294 18:07:29 <sgk>	we're done?
 295 18:07:36 <GregNoel>	I think so; g'night all.
 296 18:07:40 <sgk>	bdbaddog:  i'll send to dev
 297 18:07:41 *	You have been marked as being away
 298 18:08:05 <sgk>	'night
 299 18:08:07 <garyo>	ok folks, see you again soon.  bdbaddog, have a beer for us!
 300 18:08:14 <bdbaddog>	will do!
 301 18:08:24 *	sgk (~sgk@67.218.105.226) has left #SCONS
 302 18:08:55 *	bdbaddog has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.3/20100401064631])
 303 18:09:30 *	garyo (~garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has left #SCONS
 304 

BugParty/IrcLog2010-06-15 (last edited 2010-06-21 18:11:32 by ip68-7-77-81)