Please note:The SCons wiki is now restored from the attack in March 2013. All old passwords have been invalidated. Please reset your password if you have an account. If you note missing pages, please report them to webmaster@scons.org. Also, new account creation is currently disabled due to an ongoing spam flood (2013/08/27).
   1 02:55 < garyo-home> ok guys, I'm here.
   2 02:56 < garyo-home> Hm, the list looks different already.  Someone's been pruning!
   3 02:59 < GregNoel> Scheduled start in two minutes.  Is Steven back?
   4 03:00 < garyo-home> He did say he might be late.  I vote we just start in a few minutes.  There's a lot of bugs to triage.
   5 03:00 < GregNoel> I agree.  Who's here and planning to participate?
   6 03:00 < bdbaddog> I'm here.
   7 03:00 < garyo-home> ditto.
   8 03:01 -!- jrandall [n=jim@bas1-london14-1096624235.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #scons
   9 03:01 < garyo-home> Are we sorting the list by priority?
  10 03:01 < garyo-home> i.e. 892 is the first one we look at?
  11 03:01 < bdbaddog> I think the link on http://scons.org/wiki/BugParty is to a list sorted by priority.
  12 03:02 < bdbaddog> which starts at 892
  13 03:02 < GregNoel> You type faster than I do; yes, that's the link
  14 03:02 < garyo-home> thought so.
  15 03:02 < bdbaddog> 430..
  16 03:02 < bdbaddog> there'll be plenty left, we can defer if we need advice.. ?
  17 03:03 < garyo-home> ok, let's start.  I say 892 look interesting but not for now.
  18 03:03 < GregNoel> If we can manage the P1 and P2, plus all the ones that have votes, I'll be satisfied for today.  If we can get significantly further, I'll be happy.
  19 03:03 < garyo-home> Steven says he can't even repro it.
  20 03:03 < GregNoel> worksforme
  21 03:04 < GregNoel> Who should resolve it?
  22 03:04 < garyo-home> right, someone should be responsible for actually editing the bugs here.  I guess I'll do it.
  23 03:04 < garyo-home> My connection's decent anyway.
  24 03:05 < garyo-home> I just have to learn my way around the darn thing.
  25 03:05 < GregNoel> OK, I appreciate it; my typing is slow enough that it would slow things down significantly
  26 03:05 < garyo-home> no prob.  892 is done.  Next?
  27 03:05 < GregNoel> It's really not that hard {;-}
  28 03:05 < GregNoel> 1041
  29 03:06 < garyo-home> 1041 is from 2005.  Looks like maybe a real bug.  Defer?
  30 03:06 < GregNoel> I _think_ this has been fixed; I know there's been work done here.  Research?
  31 03:06 < bdbaddog> yup. looks like needs to be run on cygwin?
  32 03:07 < garyo-home> yuck, cygwin python is teh evil.
  33 03:07 < bdbaddog> :)
  34 03:07 < garyo-home> I made it research.  Next?
  35 03:07 < GregNoel> Who gets it?  Steven?
  36 03:07 < bdbaddog> if you want to assign to me to research, that's fine.
  37 03:07 < GregNoel> OK, done
  38 03:08 < garyo-home> 1581
  39 03:08 < GregNoel> P3 in 2.x?
  40 03:08 < bdbaddog> sounds good to me.
  41 03:08 < garyo-home> at least.  This seems hard and not all that interesting.
  42 03:09 < GregNoel> OK, sounds good.
  43 03:09 < GregNoel> Next is 1727
  44 03:09 < GregNoel> I have no clue
  45 03:09 < garyo-home> omg it's in Russian.
  46 03:10 < garyo-home> This one comes up on the list now & then.  I bet it's a dup of something else, let me check.
  47 03:10 < bdbaddog> :)
  48 03:10 < GregNoel> Only the first part.  Steven's response is clever.
  49 03:10 < bdbaddog> It may be part of a genrealized handling of long command lines for windows.
  50 03:10 < bdbaddog> I'm dealing with such at one of my clients with windows build now.
  51 03:11 < bdbaddog> not this specific one, but long command lines on win32.
  52 03:11 < garyo-home> 800 is also about long lines.
  53 03:12 < GregNoel> It's assigned to sbaranov, not a Tigris account; maybe Bill could contact him?
  54 03:12 < garyo-home> but it's not a dup.  OK to move to research for 1721?
  55 03:13 < GregNoel> Yes, and 800 as well.  Bill, can you take them?
  56 03:13 < garyo-home> ok, will do 800 now.
  57 03:13 < bdbaddog> ok. I'll make a note and try to contact the filer and assigned to.
  58 03:13 < garyo-home> Bill, what's your tigris login?
  59 03:14 < GregNoel> 1899, I think should be 0.xx or 1.0
  60 03:14 < garyo-home> must be easy, right?
  61 03:14 < GregNoel> Hopefully, but it seems important
  62 03:15 < garyo-home> I think it's already done and the user's seeing a unicode problem.  Just a guess.
  63 03:15 < bdbaddog> looks like there's changes already submited.. follow the urls.
  64 03:15 < garyo-home> OK I'll put it as 0.xx.
  65 03:15 < bdbaddog> sounds good.
  66 03:15 < GregNoel> 396
  67 03:16 < garyo-home> nice enhancement but not for 1.0.
  68 03:16 < GregNoel> We know that relative paths are expensive to calculate in general, but for this specific case it might be feasible.
  69 03:16 < garyo-home> 1.x?
  70 03:16 < GregNoel> yes
  71 03:16 < bdbaddog> is that "polish" or featuer?
  72 03:16 < GregNoel> and P3
  73 03:16 < bdbaddog> feature ?
  74 03:17 < GregNoel> yes
  75 03:17 < garyo-home> sorry, what?
  76 03:17 < GregNoel> Ur, I mean yes to both; it's fuzzy.
  77 03:17 < garyo-home> P3 I got.
  78 03:17 < garyo-home> oh I get it.  I say it's a feature.
  79 03:18 < bdbaddog> o.k. and not a regression, if so I'd push to 2.x
  80 03:18 < garyo-home> Have to duck out for a couple of minutes.  Be right back.
  81 03:18 < bdbaddog> ok
  82 03:19 < GregNoel> I could accept that.  It comes in the category of "things that might be done while we're consolidating 1.0"
  83 03:19 < bdbaddog> so file 2.x and if it gets done, cool?
  84 03:20 < GregNoel> No, file 1.x and if it doesn't get done, push to 2.x
  85 03:20 < bdbaddog> :D
  86 03:20 < bdbaddog> I see we have opposite approaches..
  87 03:20 < bdbaddog> This is a would be nice, but not a must have, right?
  88 03:20 < GregNoel> Maybe make it P4 so it's an obvious candidate
  89 03:21 < GregNoel> Gary, you seem to have the deciding opinion; are you back?
  90 03:22 < bdbaddog> That's just the approach I use on commercial projects. Works pretty well.
  91 03:22 < GregNoel> In the meantime, 1420 has two competing patches; maybe 1.x P3?
  92 03:22 < garyo-home> ok sorry, here I am
  93 03:22 < garyo-home> what's up?
  94 03:23 < GregNoel> Bill, promise them less and surprise them?
  95 03:23 < GregNoel> Gary, scroll back; you have a decision.
  96 03:23 < bdbaddog> Well focus on the must haves, and if you have time for the would be nice. pleasant surprise, but do what you say you will, is my approach.
  97 03:23 < garyo-home> We're on 396, right?  It's 1.x vs 2.x?
  98 03:24 < GregNoel> yes
  99 03:24 < bdbaddog> Gary - basically if it's a would be nice do we push to the next further out marker.
 100 03:24 < bdbaddog> versus a must have.
 101 03:24 < garyo-home> Looks like a would-be-nice to me.
 102 03:24 < GregNoel> In FOSS, it's not as bad to get bumped
 103 03:24 < garyo-home> Right, someone can always submit a patch.
 104 03:25 < garyo-home> I'm going to put it in 2.x, P3.  You guys start the next one.
 105 03:25 < bdbaddog> o.k. thanks.
 106 03:26 < GregNoel> With two patches, I say 1.x P3
 107 03:26 < garyo-home> Oh yeah, this is a good one.  People get bit by this.
 108 03:26 < bdbaddog> basically just needs some tests?
 109 03:26 < GregNoel> I haven't read the patches.
 110 03:26 < garyo-home> Greg, you've looked at this.  1.x P2?
 111 03:27 < bdbaddog> looks like there are tests in both patches, one is a lot simpler than the other looks like. but could be the amount of tests.
 112 03:27 < GregNoel> 1.x P3, but I'd buy P2
 113 03:27 < garyo-home> ok done.
 114 03:27 < garyo-home> 1461
 115 03:28 < GregNoel> 1461, no clue
 116 03:28 < GregNoel> Bypass and ask Steven when he shows?
 117 03:28 < garyo-home> ancient.  Don't even know if it would still happen.  Get more info?
 118 03:28 < jrandall> just tried it, still happens
 119 03:28 < GregNoel> yes
 120 03:28 < garyo-home> jrandall: you're fast!
 121 03:29 < garyo-home> would you make a note?
 122 03:29 < GregNoel> Hi, jrandall, glad to have you aboard
 123 03:29 < jrandall> cheated - went ahead on that as I was curious :)
 124 03:29 < jrandall> hello!
 125 03:29 < garyo-home> ok, I'll make a note to come back to 1461.
 126 03:29 < GregNoel> 1849
 127 03:29 < garyo-home> 1849
 128 03:30 < garyo-home> No Java fixes (or any tool) in 1.0, I say.
 129 03:30 < GregNoel> There's been some work with Java; this may be fixed.  Research?
 130 03:30 < bdbaddog> yup. I'll try and get ahold of the filer.
 131 03:30 < garyo-home> OK.  Steven already asked him for more info.
 132 03:31 < GregNoel> It may be the same as 1594
 133 03:31 < bdbaddog> can just send him that we'll be closing the bug if we don't hear in N days?
 134 03:31 < garyo-home> right.  318 now?
 135 03:31 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: ok w/ me.
 136 03:31 < GregNoel> Or merge it into 1594
 137 03:31 < bdbaddog> future
 138 03:31 < GregNoel> 318 1.x?
 139 03:31 < bdbaddog> for 318
 140 03:32 < GregNoel> SCons is going to be torn up for 2.0, i18n may be reasonable to look at then
 141 03:32 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: can you take both 1594 & 1849, or should I merge them now?
 142 03:32 < garyo-home> Greg: right, no i18n now.
 143 03:33 < bdbaddog> sure. 1594 and 1849
 144 03:33 < GregNoel> It's not clear they're the same issue, but probably.
 145 03:33 < bdbaddog> Should I modify 1594 then?
 146 03:33 < GregNoel> your choice.  I tend to merge with the earliest.
 147 03:33 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: if you don't mind.
 148 03:33 < bdbaddog> done.
 149 03:34 < garyo-home> ok, 331
 150 03:34 < GregNoel> not i18n now, but maybe look at it for 2.0, so 1.x
 151 03:34 < garyo-home> 331 -> 2.0
 152 03:34 < bdbaddog> yup
 153 03:35 < GregNoel> 2.x, there's no 2.0
 154 03:35 < garyo-home> 331 done.
 155 03:35 < bdbaddog> 340 future
 156 03:35 < GregNoel> ditto
 157 03:35 < garyo-home> yup.
 158 03:35 < bdbaddog> would be cool though..
 159 03:35 < GregNoel> 345 future
 160 03:35 < bdbaddog> summer of code.. ;)
 161 03:36 < garyo-home> 345 done. 359?
 162 03:36 < bdbaddog> future
 163 03:36 < GregNoel> future
 164 03:36 < garyo-home> Someone was interested in jython.  But future I say.
 165 03:37 < GregNoel> summer of code
 166 03:37 < bdbaddog> SOC. yes.
 167 03:37 < garyo-home> I put that in the comment.
 168 03:37 < bdbaddog> 362 2.x ?
 169 03:37 < GregNoel> I've got it as a note; 359 was already there; I'll add 345.
 170 03:37 < garyo-home> None of 362 seems at all important to me.  2.x if ever.
 171 03:38 < GregNoel> 362 2.x
 172 03:38 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 173 03:38 < bdbaddog> 388 2.x that is.
 174 03:38 < garyo-home> offtopic: it is annoying I have to enter a comment on each change.
 175 03:38 < GregNoel> 388 2.x
 176 03:38 < garyo-home> 388: agreed.
 177 03:39 < GregNoel> just make a list and do a mass change afterward
 178 03:39 < GregNoel> or one mass change for each category
 179 03:39 < bdbaddog> 389 2.x
 180 03:39 < GregNoel> 389 future
 181 03:39 < garyo-home> I"ve never tried mass change, but if it works I'll do that.
 182 03:40 < garyo-home> 389 is our stuff, Greg.
 183 03:40 < bdbaddog> yup.
 184 03:40 < GregNoel> take Tony off 389; he's not active any more exept as a moderator
 185 03:40 < GregNoel> Gary, yes, but we have no clue about the schedule for it yet
 186 03:41 < bdbaddog> but sometime, so I think it's o.k with 2.x
 187 03:41 < garyo-home> right.  I'll put it there.
 188 03:41 < GregNoel> 583 is SoC, also TaskmasterNG
 189 03:41 < bdbaddog> o.k. cool. so 2.x ?
 190 03:42 < GregNoel> yes
 191 03:42 < garyo-home> I don't think 583 can really be done properly.
 192 03:42 < garyo-home> 583 -> future
 193 03:42 < bdbaddog> fine by me. 2.x or future, or never.
 194 03:42 < GregNoel> it can be done, and if you intend to include it from the begining, it's not hard
 195 03:42 < GregNoel> 2.x, give it to me
 196 03:43 < garyo-home> ok.
 197 03:43 < bdbaddog> 590 2.x
 198 03:43 < garyo-home> I think 590 is done, I'm closing it.  It's mine anyway.
 199 03:43 < GregNoel> 590 is INVALID; Gary, you want to do the honors?
 200 03:44 < GregNoel> Geeze, everybody types faster than me
 201 03:44 < bdbaddog> :)
 202 03:44 < GregNoel> 1295
 203 03:44 < jrandall> I put a note in this one.  I give good odds it's fixed already
 204 03:45 < GregNoel> Maybe 1.x, but I could be persuaded
 205 03:45 < garyo-home> research, then either already done or 1.x?
 206 03:45 < bdbaddog> if it's not fixed, push to 2.0
 207 03:45 < bdbaddog> research. yes.
 208 03:45 < garyo-home> done
 209 03:45 < GregNoel> research by jrandall.  see what you get?
 210 03:45 < jrandall> OK
 211 03:46 < GregNoel> 1413, no clue
 212 03:46 < bdbaddog> this is when you isntall as not an administrator.
 213 03:46 < garyo-home> duh.
 214 03:46 < bdbaddog> and you are presented option to select install dir, 90% sure of that.
 215 03:46 < garyo-home> 2.x or future?
 216 03:47 < bdbaddog> or roll in with the stand alone.
 217 03:47 < bdbaddog> yes. 2.x
 218 03:47 < bdbaddog> New installer would be good in 2.x timeframe.
 219 03:47 < GregNoel> "standalone" one word
 220 03:47 < garyo-home> +1 on new installer someday.
 221 03:47 < bdbaddog> where x != 0
 222 03:47 < garyo-home> ok.
 223 03:48 < GregNoel> 1423
 224 03:48 < garyo-home> 1423: need a test case.
 225 03:48 < bdbaddog> I think this is like running .configure, and not make distclean..
 226 03:49 < bdbaddog> and expecting it to regenerate cached values ?
 227 03:49 < GregNoel> 2.x possibly 1.x
 228 03:49 < garyo-home> blkdog: it's actually happened before to me, I think there is a bug in there somewhere.
 229 03:49 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 230 03:49 < garyo-home> ok, 2.x it is
 231 03:49 < GregNoel> 1429, 2.x maybe 1.x
 232 03:50 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 233 03:50 < garyo-home> sorry guys, another interruption, please keep going.
 234 03:50 < GregNoel> There's an easy workaround, so 2.x
 235 03:50 < bdbaddog> yup.
 236 03:51 < GregNoel> 1752 may be fixed
 237 03:51 < bdbaddog> gimme a sec. I'll try it.
 238 03:51 < GregNoel> OK, research by Bill it is.
 239 03:51 < GregNoel> If nothing else, it's probably a dup of 1699
 240 03:52 < bdbaddog> testcase doesn't work.
 241 03:52 < bdbaddog> in latest svn.
 242 03:52 < bdbaddog> scons: Reading SConscript files ...
 243 03:52 < bdbaddog> TypeError: Clean() takes exactly 3 arguments (2 given):
 244 03:52 < bdbaddog>   File "/home/bdbaddog/1752/SConstruct", line 5:
 245 03:52 < bdbaddog>     Clean("install")
 246 03:52 < bdbaddog>   File "/home/bdbaddog/tools/stow/scons-svn/lib/scons-0.97.0d20080317/SCons/Script/SConscript.py", line 596:
 247 03:52 < bdbaddog>     return apply(method, args, kw)
 248 03:52 < bdbaddog> research.
 249 03:52 < GregNoel> env.Clean()
 250 03:52 < bdbaddog> I'll take a look at it.
 251 03:53 < GregNoel> Also 1699?
 252 03:53 < bdbaddog> TypeError: Clean() takes exactly 3 arguments (2 given):
 253 03:53 < garyo-home> ok sorry about that, glad I don't work from home. :-)
 254 03:54 < garyo-home> 1429 -> 2.x, 1752 -> research, right?
 255 03:54 < GregNoel> Except that she's offered pizza, I'd have tied down my wife...
 256 03:54 < GregNoel> And 1699 may be a dup of 1752
 257 03:54 < garyo-home> I don't believe that for a second, Greg.
 258 03:54 < bdbaddog> I'll research 1699 and 1752
 259 03:55 < garyo-home> OK, can you make the mods to those issues then?
 260 03:55 < bdbaddog> yup
 261 03:55 < GregNoel> That's why I said "may"
 262 03:55 < GregNoel> 1848 is multiple bugs
 263 03:56 < GregNoel> I suggest Steven to research.  He's not here, so he can't complain.
 264 03:56 < garyo-home> No, I know what 1848 is, it's an alias that conflicts with a filename.
 265 03:57 < garyo-home> Workaround is to use Alias('hello') where you mean the alias.
 266 03:57 < garyo-home> Or File() or the builder result where you mean the file.
 267 03:57 < GregNoel> Yes, but there are multiple problems in the bug
 268 03:57 < garyo-home> They're all the same, I think.  I'll take it as research.
 269 03:57 < GregNoel> ok
 270 03:58 < GregNoel> 1922 is resolved
 271 03:58 < garyo-home> done.
 272 03:58 < bdbaddog> my list just went away,... next is gone.
 273 03:58 < garyo-home> 1526 I think
 274 03:58 < GregNoel> 1526 should be 0.xx {;-}
 275 03:59 < bdbaddog> ok .got it again.
 276 03:59 < bdbaddog> feature right?
 277 03:59 < garyo-home> sure Greg.
 278 03:59 < garyo-home> :-)
 279 03:59 < jrandall> has the most votes you know :)
 280 03:59 < GregNoel> basis for many other features
 281 03:59 < bdbaddog> It does sound useful though..
 282 03:59 < bdbaddog> but I think 2.x
 283 04:00 < GregNoel> including new configure, Gary
 284 04:00 < garyo-home> 1.x at least, or 2.x.  Yes, might interact w/ new toolchain/tool-config stuff indeed.  How about I say 1.x for now?
 285 04:00 < GregNoel> K
 286 04:00 < bdbaddog> 2.x or punt til steven gets online..
 287 04:01 < garyo-home> made a note to ask him about it
 288 04:01 < bdbaddog> k next.
 289 04:01 < GregNoel> 1839
 290 04:02 < garyo-home> I've seen this too, on a 2-cpu linux box.
 291 04:02 < GregNoel> I know Steven worried about this, but it looks like INVALID to me.
 292 04:02 < bdbaddog> do you need to eat up all the available processes to get this?
 293 04:02 < garyo-home> I think I had to trap that errno and return success (which wasn't really right so I didn't submit it)
 294 04:02 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: no I don't think so.
 295 04:03 < bdbaddog> how do you reproduce the problem?
 296 04:03 < garyo-home> I thought it was the subprocess returning so fast the wait logic got confused.
 297 04:03 < garyo-home> repro: a big build with lots of stuff going on, and -jN.
 298 04:03 < bdbaddog> on linux?
 299 04:04 < garyo-home> Yes.  Actually looking at the last comment, maybe my bug was different?  I don't use backtick.
 300 04:04 < bdbaddog> is there a known fix?
 301 04:04 < garyo-home> In any case we can't do anything about it for 1.0.
 302 04:04 < bdbaddog> yeah. that's what I'm thinking.
 303 04:04 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 304 04:05 < garyo-home> Not for mine, I rerun the build.  And it hasn't happened to me in a long time.
 305 04:05 < garyo-home> ok 1839 -> 2.x.
 306 04:05 < garyo-home> 1633
 307 04:05 < GregNoel> 1633 just showed up on the mailing list again today, 1.x?
 308 04:06 < garyo-home> Why is this not the same as Depends?
 309 04:06 < GregNoel> If you don't have a scanner that works, what's the workaround?
 310 04:06 < bdbaddog> punt til steven comes online, looks like he's worked on it a bit.
 311 04:06 < GregNoel> No, it's not a dependency; it's like an #include in a source file
 312 04:07 < garyo-home> So the dependency gets scanned, that's the behavior that differs?
 313 04:07 < GregNoel> What scanner for Te
 314 04:07 < GregNoel> What scanner for TeX was that?
 315 04:07 < bdbaddog> I'm sure Steven can explain when he gets online..
 316 04:08 < garyo-home> ok, I'll defer it.  But we still aren't going to do it for 1.0.
 317 04:08 < bdbaddog> true.
 318 04:08 < GregNoel> I'd say 1.x
 319 04:08 < bdbaddog> 2.x ping Steven Later for details?
 320 04:08 < GregNoel> 1.x
 321 04:08 < bdbaddog> feature. not a bug. I'd say 2.x
 322 04:09 < garyo-home> It's on the "revisit with Steven" list for now, let's move on.
 323 04:09 < GregNoel> 1086
 324 04:09 < garyo-home> 1086 is batch builders, a wonderful idea for 2.x.
 325 04:09 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 326 04:09 < GregNoel> It's a SoC; 2.x is fine.
 327 04:09 < bdbaddog> It will make one of my clients very happy.
 328 04:09 < garyo-home> :-)
 329 04:10 < GregNoel> decision?
 330 04:10 < bdbaddog> 1671 looks like part of the great tool refactoring?
 331 04:10 < bdbaddog> 2.x for 1086
 332 04:10 < garyo-home> 1671 is a toolchain one, yes.
 333 04:10 < bdbaddog> 1671 2.x
 334 04:10 < garyo-home> 2.x for 1086 and 1671.
 335 04:10 < GregNoel> Steven should have something to say
 336 04:10 < garyo-home> (or maybe pre-2.0, it's important -- but not 1.0)
 337 04:11 < bdbaddog> should make a note to wrap up the tool realated bugs into one umbrella to tie them together.
 338 04:11 < garyo-home> 1671 I mean
 339 04:11 < GregNoel> 1.x?
 340 04:11 < GregNoel> and revisit?
 341 04:11 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 342 04:11 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: I created a "tool" subcategory this morning for this.
 343 04:11 < bdbaddog> O.k. cool.
 344 04:12 < GregNoel> decision?
 345 04:12 < garyo-home> ok 1671 is 1.x for now so we are forced to think about it then.
 346 04:12 < bdbaddog> I'd disagree.
 347 04:12 < GregNoel> Oh, 1671 is a dup of 1007, so it's been around
 348 04:12 < bdbaddog> feels like a feature. better tool messaging.
 349 04:13 < GregNoel> feels like a bug if it bites you.
 350 04:13 < bdbaddog> :)
 351 04:13 < bdbaddog> but it never worked before..
 352 04:13 < garyo-home> Greg's right about that, but the right way to fix it is to refactor (feature)
 353 04:13 < GregNoel> Even worse, it leads to silent failures
 354 04:14 < bdbaddog> I'm voting 2.x, we can punt til Steven's online to get his opinion and move on.
 355 04:14 < garyo-home> I think since Greg & I are working on it (in theory) it's possible to get it in soonish.  I'll mark it as disputed.
 356 04:14 < GregNoel> Yes, revisit with Steven
 357 04:14 -!- stevenknight [n=stevenkn@c-24-4-99-215.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scons
 358 04:14 < bdbaddog> speaking of the devil...;)
 359 04:14 < stevenknight> yo
 360 04:14 < garyo-home> Hi Steven!
 361 04:14 < bdbaddog> 17 in rush hour fun I guess.
 362 04:15 < GregNoel> Uh, it isn't our stuff; this is different
 363 04:15 < GregNoel> Ho, Steven
 364 04:15 < stevenknight> no, it was the fact that SJC now has all their restaurants and stuff behind the security gate
 365 04:15 < stevenknight> didn't last time I was there
 366 04:15 < stevenknight> lost time parking, going in, etc.
 367 04:15 < stevenknight> gah
 368 04:15 < bdbaddog> oh boy.
 369 04:15 < bdbaddog> well now for something stress free..
 370 04:15 < bdbaddog> :)
 371 04:15 < garyo-home> ah well.  We have a short list of deferred issues for you, otherwise we're up to 1912.
 372 04:15 < stevenknight> cool
 373 04:16 < garyo-home> Can we do the deferred ones now?
 374 04:16 < stevenknight> i'm okay with it
 375 04:16 < garyo-home> 1461, 1526, 1633, 1671
 376 04:16 < bdbaddog> may as well. they'll be higher priorities than later ones.
 377 04:17 < GregNoel> 1461
 378 04:17 < garyo-home> 1461: wtf?    1526: entry pt refactor    1633 and 1671: dispute re: 1.x or 2.x.
 379 04:17 < garyo-home> yes, 1461 first.
 380 04:17 < garyo-home> Steven: none of us understand this one.
 381 04:18 < stevenknight> i seem to have net lag to tigris.org
 382 04:18 < stevenknight> hang on...
 383 04:18 < GregNoel> Er, I understand 1461, but I don't know how hard the fix is
 384 04:18 < garyo-home> ok
 385 04:19 < stevenknight> 1461:  probably pretty hairy
 386 04:19 < garyo-home> Using mkdir in an action is not elementary
 387 04:20 < stevenknight> it touches on the fact that Dir nodes are kind of like other nodes in that we want to be able to treat them as targets
 388 04:20 < garyo-home> ok, so 1461 -> 2.x?
 389 04:20 < stevenknight> but they also get treated differently if they're created as part of making room for some other target
 390 04:20 < stevenknight> yeah, no reason to hold 1.0 for it
 391 04:20 < stevenknight> probably won't happen
 392 04:20 < stevenknight> by then
 393 04:20 < garyo-home> (Steven, I'm making a list of changes which I'll apply in batch to Tigris later.)
 394 04:20 < stevenknight> (cool, thanks)
 395 04:20 < stevenknight> 1526:
 396 04:20 < garyo-home> ok, 1526 then
 397 04:20 < stevenknight> net lag...
 398 04:21 < garyo-home> Greg wants scons entry points refactored
 399 04:21 < bdbaddog> I was sugguesting 2.x rather than 1.x
 400 04:21  * GregNoel is staying mum
 401 04:21 < jrandall> *** as is jrandall
 402 04:22 < bdbaddog> reasoning being, feels like a feature, so push to 2.x
 403 04:22 < stevenknight> ah, 1526...!
 404 04:22 < stevenknight> there was one brief moment where I felt like I understood the underlying intent in a way that translated to a real API
 405 04:23 < stevenknight> but I lost it quite awhile ago
 406 04:23 < GregNoel> (;)
 407 04:23 < stevenknight> it's probably not hard if Greg and I work out the specifics
 408 04:23 < stevenknight> THAT would be the trick...  :-)
 409 04:23 < bdbaddog> :)
 410 04:23 < GregNoel> I'm willing
 411 04:23 < stevenknight> can we put it on a maybe-for-1.0 and Greg and I try to work it into shape off line?
 412 04:23 < bdbaddog> Yeah.I'm just sugguesting that (to counter your fore-stated predilection of putting one more feature in), to push features to 2.x, and if they get done earlier then cool.
 413 04:24 < garyo-home> Not 1.0, but 1.x?
 414 04:24 < GregNoel> 1.x
 415 04:24 < stevenknight> 1.x
 416 04:24 < garyo-home> ok, and if it doesn't get done, then no big deal.
 417 04:24 < GregNoel> yes
 418 04:24 < stevenknight> 1633:  (pre-loaded while working on the others)
 419 04:24 < GregNoel> Includes() is not Depends()
 420 04:25 < stevenknight> this looked like it was going to be easy, but started getting hairy
 421 04:25 < garyo-home> ... because it scans the dependency.
 422 04:25 < stevenknight> right
 423 04:25 < stevenknight> Joseph's last suggestion should be tried
 424 04:25 < garyo-home> I say feature therefore 2.x.
 425 04:25 < garyo-home> steven: well, that would be easy...
 426 04:25 < GregNoel> I saw it as something that acted as if it were scanned in.
 427 04:26 < stevenknight> hmm, yeah, 2.x
 428 04:26 < garyo-home> ok, done.
 429 04:26 < stevenknight> it's another one I'd really like to get in, too
 430 04:26 < bdbaddog> so this would be used when theres no scanner or the scanner isn't 100% ?
 431 04:26 < stevenknight> but i'm trying to be good...  :-)
 432 04:26 < GregNoel> 1671 and 1007
 433 04:26 < stevenknight> yeah, the situation I envisioned is you have a one-off and you don't want to write a scanner for it
 434 04:26 < bdbaddog> 1671 is another feels like a feature, it's not a regression,
 435 04:26 < stevenknight> if you know the dependency, it would let you just hard-wire it
 436 04:27 < stevenknight> 1671:  boy, i'm torn on this one
 437 04:27 < stevenknight> i hoped the ToolInitializer stuff would permit this
 438 04:27 < garyo-home> The right way to fix it is the toolchain stuff Greg and I are working on.
 439 04:27 < GregNoel> Er, not the same
 440 04:27 < garyo-home> It's important but nontrivial.
 441 04:27 < bdbaddog> Greg and Gary are doing tool refactor, but that's unlikely to be in the next month right?
 442 04:27 < stevenknight> it really sucks that we only give people an impenetrable AttributeError in this case
 443 04:27 < stevenknight> but ToolInitializer drags in a whole bunch of other issues
 444 04:28 < garyo-home> bdbaddog: not next month for sure.
 445 04:28 < GregNoel> This isn't Tool refactor!
 446 04:28  * stevenknight agrees w/garyo-home re: nontrivial
 447 04:28 < garyo-home> Greg: it's not the tool refactor but that would fix it, right?
 448 04:28 < GregNoel> no
 449 04:28 < stevenknight> does it or doesn't it line up with the toolchain stuff?  Gary seemed to say yes but Greg disagreed?
 450 04:28 < bdbaddog> I say put to 2.x, when it can be part of the tool solution?
 451 04:29 < stevenknight> what are we treating as the difference between 1.x and 2.x?
 452 04:29 < garyo-home> ok Greg, maybe toolchain doesn't *always* fix it, story too long to be told here & now.
 453 04:29 < GregNoel> 1.x should be done before 2.0, in some order
 454 04:29 < stevenknight> that's it?  then i'd vote 1.x on this one
 455 04:29 < bdbaddog> 1.x is polish on 1.0, 2.x should be new features.
 456 04:30 < GregNoel> "be flexible"
 457 04:30 < garyo-home> what bdbaddog said.
 458 04:30 < stevenknight> yeah, polish
 459 04:30 < bdbaddog> 1.xIssues that should be resolved during the 1.x release cycles. Since the 1.x cycle will be fairly short, these will probably focus on
 460                   "polishing" the release.
 461 04:30 < stevenknight> agreed re: flexible, too
 462 04:30 < garyo-home> ok, so?
 463 04:30 < stevenknight> so i'd vote 1.x, and we can alway reclassify 2.x if that looks non-viable, yes?
 464 04:30 < GregNoel> yes
 465 04:31 < stevenknight> okay, 1.x
 466 04:31 < garyo-home> usually I'd say push the feature out, but this one bites *so* many people.
 467 04:31 < bdbaddog> I'll still vote 2.x, but defer to greater numbers.
 468 04:31 < stevenknight> right
 469 04:31 < garyo-home> 1.x it is then.
 470 04:31 < garyo-home> Now we're back to the regular list.
 471 04:31 < GregNoel> 1913, C#
 472 04:31 < garyo-home> 1912 I think?
 473 04:31 < GregNoel> oops, 1912
 474 04:31 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 475 04:31 < garyo-home> 2.x
 476 04:31 < GregNoel> 2.x
 477 04:32 < stevenknight> we're going in top-voted order?
 478 04:32 < stevenknight> 2.x
 479 04:32 < GregNoel> "be flexible" consensus
 480 04:32 < GregNoel> 1917 is a dup and should be gone
 481 04:32 < GregNoel> 589?
 482 04:33 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 483 04:33 < garyo-home> steven: order is priority, go to http://www.scons.org/wiki/BugParty & click there.
 484 04:33 < garyo-home> 589 is next, yes?
 485 04:33 < bdbaddog> yes.
 486 04:33 < GregNoel> 2.x
 487 04:33 < bdbaddog> or future.. needs python 2.3
 488 04:34 < GregNoel> That can be retrofitted, I think
 489 04:34 < garyo-home> ok, 2.x then?
 490 04:34 < bdbaddog> yup.
 491 04:34 < GregNoel> 1228
 492 04:34 < GregNoel> Another new config issue
 493 04:34 < garyo-home> did I miss 1217?
 494 04:35 < GregNoel> dup
 495 04:35 < garyo-home> ok
 496 04:35 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 497 04:35 < garyo-home> 2.x tools
 498 04:35 < bdbaddog> 1228 2.x that is (I'd vote for it.. )
 499 04:35 < GregNoel> I'll add a "new config" keyword for these issues
 500 04:36 < stevenknight> 1228: 2.x
 501 04:36 < garyo-home> don't call it config though please, how about toolchain
 502 04:36 < GregNoel> 1938
 503 04:36 < GregNoel> ok
 504 04:37 < bdbaddog> Jim u going to chime in on this one? ;)
 505 04:37 < GregNoel> I've looked at this; it's a grotty problem
 506 04:37 < jrandall> ay e- would love to see this fixed if possible
 507 04:37 < bdbaddog> o.k. ugly problem either 2.x or 1.x
 508 04:37 < bdbaddog> though it looks like its a regression.
 509 04:38 < garyo-home> we need a milestone for "try for 1.x else 2.x"
 510 04:38 < stevenknight> still loading for me:  this is how multiple targets get the same MD5 in the cache, yes?
 511 04:38 < bdbaddog> I though all 2.x's would get tried for 1.x..
 512 04:38 < GregNoel> Gary, 1.x P4
 513 04:38 < GregNoel> or even P5
 514 04:38 < garyo-home> 1.x p4 I can live with.
 515 04:38 < stevenknight> ah, no, just got it up
 516 04:38 < GregNoel> Bill, only if we run out of 1.x
 517 04:39 < jrandall> this makes it hard to use implicit-cache, which is a bummer
 518 04:39 < bdbaddog> exactly.
 519 04:39 < stevenknight> 1938:  1.x
 520 04:39 < garyo-home> ok done.
 521 04:39 < bdbaddog> 417 future.
 522 04:39 < GregNoel> 417
 523 04:39 < garyo-home> 417 (then 1465, Steven)
 524 04:39 < stevenknight> 417 future
 525 04:39 < GregNoel> future
 526 04:39 < garyo-home> future ok, done.
 527 04:40 < GregNoel> if we keep it at all
 528 04:40 < garyo-home> 1465?
 529 04:40 < GregNoel> no clue
 530 04:40 < stevenknight> 1465:  1.x
 531 04:40 < garyo-home> This is a tool thing, it's nice, not too hard but should be 2.x.
 532 04:40 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 533 04:40 < stevenknight> unless someone else knows that patch better and wants to take it on
 534 04:40 < garyo-home> I'll take this one, I do this kind of thing in real life
 535 04:41 < GregNoel> 1678?
 536 04:41 < stevenknight> for 1.x?
 537 04:41 < GregNoel> yes
 538 04:41 < stevenknight> k
 539 04:41 < GregNoel> There's a wiki page on it; we should talk
 540 04:41 < stevenknight> 1678:  how close does Maciej's stuff bring us to this?
 541 04:42 < stevenknight> I think it comes in whenever that does
 542 04:42 < garyo-home> ok if you guys say so.  Sounds hard to me.
 543 04:42 -!- Paf [n=Gedeon@c-76-21-119-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scons
 544 04:42 < stevenknight> any consensus discussion about that?
 545 04:42 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 546 04:42 < Paf> hi
 547 04:42 < GregNoel> 1.x
 548 04:42 < garyo-home> I think that has to be 2.x, but early in that cycle.
 549 04:42 < stevenknight> hey Paf
 550 04:42 < garyo-home> Hi Paf
 551 04:42 < GregNoel> 1.x P4?
 552 04:43 < stevenknight> GregNoeL;  1.x for 1678, or for all of Maciej's stuff?
 553 04:43 < garyo-home> Are we talking about 1678 or Maciej's work?  1678-> 1.x ok with me.
 554 04:43 < GregNoel> 1678
 555 04:43 < garyo-home> maciej has to be 2.x though, agreed?
 556 04:43 < GregNoel> Maciej didn't do anything with cross-run retention
 557 04:43 < garyo-home> ok, 1678 -> 1.x.
 558 04:43 < stevenknight> is it separable?  i'm concerned we create a mechanism to store --srcdir and then have to redo it when we get all the automake model (Maciej)
 559 04:44 < stevenknight> ok, 1678: 1.x
 560 04:44 < GregNoel> No, he assumed recalc every time
 561 04:44  * stevenknight nods
 562 04:44 < GregNoel> 1699 is a dup
 563 04:44 < garyo-home> of what?
 564 04:44 < bdbaddog> 1752
 565 04:44 < GregNoel> of 1752
 566 04:44 < garyo-home> ok, noted.
 567 04:44 < garyo-home> 967?
 568 04:45 < GregNoel> 967?
 569 04:45 < GregNoel> toolchain, future?
 570 04:45 < garyo-home> maybe, even if.
 571 04:45 < stevenknight> future, even if
 572 04:45 < bdbaddog> future
 573 04:45 < garyo-home> ok, future.
 574 04:46 < GregNoel> 1424, INVALID?
 575 04:46 < stevenknight> 1242: future?
 576 04:46 < bdbaddog> 1242 2.x
 577 04:46 < garyo-home> this isn't really an issue report though.
 578 04:46 < GregNoel> There's no issue
 579 04:46 < garyo-home> I'm with Greg.
 580 04:46 < stevenknight> i can go w/2.x
 581 04:46 < stevenknight> ???
 582 04:46 < bdbaddog> qt4 support's not in scons as of now.
 583 04:46 < bdbaddog> only qt3
 584 04:46 < GregNoel> Drop it, or add an issue to it
 585 04:47 < garyo-home> I'm sure there's another qt4 issue, if not I'll add a better one.
 586 04:47 < GregNoel> OK
 587 04:47 < bdbaddog> qt4 2.x
 588 04:47 < stevenknight> net lag bringing it up:  I take it there's no description on 1242
 589 04:47 < bdbaddog> I'm fine with dropping bad bugs
 590 04:47 < stevenknight> as long as we track qt4 somewhere, sure INVALID 1242
 591 04:47 < bdbaddog> its a wide open request for qt4 support
 592 04:47 < stevenknight> 2.x is fine
 593 04:48 < GregNoel> 1435, future
 594 04:48 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 595 04:48 < bdbaddog> or future.
 596 04:48  * GregNoel short pause for pizza
 597 04:48 < bdbaddog> needs tests and fleshing out right?
 598 04:48 < stevenknight> 1435:  2.x
 599 04:48 < stevenknight> yeah
 600 04:48 < bdbaddog> has real value.
 601 04:49 < stevenknight> i hear requests for pre-compiled header support a lot
 602 04:49 < garyo-home> yes, I don't think that's the right approach though.
 603 04:49 < garyo-home> batch builder would save more build time than pch
 604 04:49 < garyo-home> but both are good.
 605 04:49 < garyo-home> 2.x?
 606 04:49 < stevenknight> agreed, batch is more important
 607 04:49 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 608 04:49 < stevenknight> 2.x
 609 04:49 < garyo-home> ok, done.
 610 04:50 < GregNoel> 1646, future or 2.x
 611 04:50 < stevenknight> 1676: dunno
 612 04:50 < garyo-home> includes a patch: 2.x?
 613 04:50 < GregNoel> did we lose 1646?
 614 04:50 < bdbaddog> patch has some tests.
 615 04:50 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 616 04:51 < bdbaddog> for me it goes 1435 then 1676
 617 04:51 < garyo-home> Greg: 1646 is way down on my list
 618 04:51 < stevenknight> i see 1242-1435-1676-138
 619 04:51 < GregNoel> votes must have changed since I pulled my list
 620 04:51 < garyo-home> 1676 -> 2.x, done.
 621 04:51 < bdbaddog> :) community at wrok.
 622 04:52 < GregNoel> 138?
 623 04:52 < bdbaddog> future
 624 04:52 < GregNoel> future?
 625 04:52 < stevenknight> 138: 2.x or future
 626 04:52 < garyo-home> future
 627 04:52 < GregNoel> 623?
 628 04:53 < GregNoel> no clue
 629 04:53 < garyo-home> this is done, it's called CFLAGS iirc
 630 04:53 < garyo-home> Steven: isn't that right?
 631 04:53 < GregNoel> I don't think so
 632 04:53 < garyo-home> (he wants cflags that are NOT applied to shccflags)
 633 04:53 < bdbaddog> don't think so.
 634 04:53 < stevenknight> CFLAGS will apply to both static and shared
 635 04:53 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 636 04:53 < stevenknight> right
 637 04:53 < GregNoel> It's for options like -PIC or v.v.
 638 04:54 < garyo-home> I'm sure you're wrong but can't prove it right now, I'll mark it 2.0 but will check later.
 639 04:54 < stevenknight> 2.x
 640 04:54 < GregNoel> mark it research then
 641 04:54 < stevenknight> if someone contributes a patch for it it could be earlier
 642 04:54 < GregNoel> 1007 is a dup of 1671
 643 04:54 < bdbaddog> you beat me to it.. ;)
 644 04:54 < bdbaddog> dup
 645 04:55 < GregNoel> 1360
 646 04:55 < GregNoel> assign to Gary or me
 647 04:55 < garyo-home> agreed, 2.x?
 648 04:55 < GregNoel> he's been working on the package, but I've been fiddling with tarfile
 649 04:55 < bdbaddog> 2.x
 650 04:56 < GregNoel> 2.x
 651 04:56 < GregNoel> (needs Python 2.2)
 652 04:56 < stevenknight> 2.x
 653 04:56 < GregNoel> 1523??
 654 04:56 < GregNoel> no clue from me
 655 04:56 < bdbaddog> future or 2.x
 656 04:57 < garyo-home> I'm not a msvs guy
 657 04:57 < stevenknight> 2.x, give it to me
 658 04:57 < garyo-home> ok
 659 04:57 < GregNoel> 1539, needs coordination with ParseFlags
 660 04:57 < bdbaddog> 2.x ?
 661 04:57 < stevenknight> ???  seemed like it would be just analogous to $CFLAGS
 662 04:58 < GregNoel> Yes, that part, but ParseFlags should recognize them and distribute
 663 04:58 < garyo-home> not just flags though, needs to be a separate builder.
 664 04:58 < GregNoel> maybe it's a separate bug
 665 04:58 < bdbaddog> yes builder, yes separate bug for parse flags
 666 04:58 < garyo-home> anyway I say 2.x; we're building ObjC/ObjC++ here just fine w/o this.
 667 04:58 < stevenknight> oh, Objective C generates different object files?
 668 04:58 < stevenknight> shows how much i know
 669 04:59 < garyo-home> no, same obj file but different compiler.
 670 04:59 < bdbaddog> and flags.
 671 04:59 < GregNoel> Different language
 672 04:59 < stevenknight> i wouldn't make that a separate builder, though
 673 04:59 < stevenknight> Object() builds objects from C and Fortran, so why not also Objective C
 674 04:59 < garyo-home> at least it needs OBJCCOM, OBJCXXCOM, etc.
 675 05:00 < garyo-home> and suffix support
 676 05:00 < bdbaddog> 2.x. punt discussion for later?
 677 05:00 < garyo-home> yes.
 678 05:00 < stevenknight> agree that it needs separate variables
 679 05:00 < stevenknight> definitely bigger issues than 1.x
 680 05:00 < stevenknight> maybe even future?
 681 05:00 < garyo-home> 's not *that* hard.
 682 05:00 < stevenknight> no, 2.x -- changed my mind
 683 05:00 < garyo-home> anyway, on to 1669
 684 05:00 < stevenknight> yeah
 685 05:01 < GregNoel> 1594 is probably a dup
 686 05:01 < bdbaddog> I get 1669 next
 687 05:01 < GregNoel> oops, am I out of order again?
 688 05:01 < stevenknight> 1669:  did you guys cover any other mingw issues?
 689 05:01 < garyo-home> I have 1669, 1738, 1890 next
 690 05:02 < stevenknight> ditto:  1669-1738-1890
 691 05:02 < stevenknight> and that covers all of them that i have with at least 1 vote
 692 05:02 < garyo-home> 1699 seems trivial, why not do it
 693 05:02 < bdbaddog> just needs some or a test right?
 694 05:03 < stevenknight> hmm, that might even already be fixed, now that i look at it
 695 05:03 < garyo-home> yes.  (I'd say LDMODULECOM = $SHLINKCOM instead of point both to the same action, but whatever.)
 696 05:03 < garyo-home> so 0.xx?
 697 05:03 < stevenknight> sure, 0.xx
 698 05:03 < bdbaddog> 0.xx
 699 05:03 < GregNoel> works for me
 700 05:03 < garyo-home> ok done.  1738
 701 05:04  * GregNoel wait
 702 05:04 < GregNoel> 1594 is a dup of the Java bug with anonymous classes; did someone clean that up?
 703 05:05 < stevenknight> there's been some anonymous class clean up, but there are still problems
 704 05:05 < garyo-home> I don't think I actually duped anything tonight (iirc)
 705 05:05 < GregNoel> OK, I'll check later,  Who got the Java bug before?
 706 05:05 < bdbaddog> Greg 1594 marked reserch for me to check if same bug as 1849
 707 05:06 < bdbaddog> I've got both.
 708 05:06 < GregNoel> Ah, perfect, thanks.  Onward!
 709 05:06 < garyo-home> ok, 1738.
 710 05:06 < garyo-home> ParseConfig bug?
 711 05:06 < stevenknight> 1738:  Greg, in your ballpark?
 712 05:06 < garyo-home> 1.x perhaps?
 713 05:07 < GregNoel> No, Append(dict) to a define flag
 714 05:07 < stevenknight> ah
 715 05:07 < GregNoel> after ParseConfig had set it up with a pseudo-list
 716 05:07 < garyo-home> I thought it starts as a pseudo-list.
 717 05:08 < garyo-home> Anyway, 1.x for Greg perhaps?
 718 05:08 < GregNoel> I'll look at it, but I think it belongs elsehwere
 719 05:08 < garyo-home> ok, you can reassign it.
 720 05:08 < stevenknight> 1.x would be nice, but flexible for 2.x
 721 05:08 < bdbaddog> 1.x or 2.x
 722 05:08 < garyo-home> ok, I marked it as 1.x for now.
 723 05:08 < GregNoel> 1890?
 724 05:09 < garyo-home> that's the main tarfile one.  What was the other one?
 725 05:09 < garyo-home> (I mean the one that this is a dup of)
 726 05:09 < garyo-home> (or is a dup of this one)
 727 05:10 < GregNoel> 1360?
 728 05:10 < bdbaddog> yup.
 729 05:10 < garyo-home> yup, I'll mark 1360 as a dup of 1890 since 1890 is nice & clear
 730 05:10 < stevenknight> 1.x?
 731 05:10 < GregNoel> 1.x
 732 05:11 < garyo-home> has to be 2.x since it requires newer python
 733 05:11 < bdbaddog> does it get cleaner with python 2.2 or above?
 734 05:11 < stevenknight> don't know how close you guys are to this one...
 735 05:11 < stevenknight> okay, 2.x
 736 05:11 < GregNoel> right, 2.x
 737 05:11 < garyo-home> Greg was backporting tarfile.py last I knew; it would be better not to do that.
 738 05:11 < garyo-home> ok, 2.x
 739 05:11 < GregNoel> tarfile.py is 2.3; probably needs a little work.
 740 05:12 < stevenknight> hate to jump in and out, but have to leave to drive back to SC in time for youngster's bed time
 741 05:12 < bdbaddog> I'm about to turn into a pumpkin myself.
 742 05:12 < garyo-home> ok, good night.  I should go pretty soon too, but we've done well
 743 05:12 < GregNoel> This is the last one with votes, and it's been two hours; time to quit for now?
 744 05:12 < bdbaddog> sounds good.
 745 05:12 < stevenknight> can one of you here the whole time capture the log and make it available?
 746 05:12 < garyo-home> which one, 1890?
 747 05:12 < stevenknight> yes, after 1890 they all have 0 votes
 748 05:12 < bdbaddog> email it?
 749 05:13 < garyo-home> I'll capture the log & email.
 750 05:13 < stevenknight> cool
 751 05:13 < garyo-home> um wait, I hope my irc client can do that.
 752 05:13 < GregNoel> Maybe post it as a page under BugParty?
 753 05:14 < stevenknight> gotta go, but this has been great
 754 05:14 < garyo-home> ok, it can do it no problem.  I'll post it under BugParty for reference.
 755 05:14 < bdbaddog> o.k. thanks all.
 756 05:14 < stevenknight> Greg, many thanks for getting it going
 757 05:14 < stevenknight> and to everyone for spending the time
 758 05:14 < GregNoel> Good-o; thanks to all for attendig.
 759 05:14 < bdbaddog> gnight to all.
 760 05:14 < garyo-home> Thanks guys!
 761 05:14 < stevenknight> l8r
 762 05:14 -!- stevenknight [n=stevenkn@c-24-4-99-215.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit ["Leaving"]
 763 05:14 -!- jrandall [n=jim@bas1-london14-1096624235.dsl.bell.ca] has left #scons []
 764 05:15  * GregNoel is going to sleep
 765 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-03-18 (last edited 2008-03-18 23:31:15 by ip68-7-76-16)