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)