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 16:42:23 *      bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
   2 17:25:45 *      stevenknight (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.130) has joined #scons
   3 17:26:25 <GregoryNoel>  That's three; where's Gary?
   4 17:26:39 <stevenknight> i think he said he might be late
   5 17:26:42 <stevenknight> putting the kids to bed
   6 17:26:56 <stevenknight> bill, you're not spinning tonight?
   7 17:27:22 <stevenknight> oh, wait, he's greyed out
   8 17:27:30 <stevenknight> who's the third?
   9 17:28:17 *      garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
  10 17:28:25 <GregoryNoel>  You, me, Bill, and there's Gary.
  11 17:28:34 <stevenknight> hi Gary
  12 17:28:50 <garyo-home>   hi guys, I'm here for a little, then I'll have to put the kids to bed, then I'll be back.
  13 17:28:57 <GregoryNoel>  Anybody else here for the bug party?
  14 17:30:09 <GregoryNoel>  OK, the official start is here; shall we proceed?
  15 17:30:16 <stevenknight> let's go
  16 17:30:24 <stevenknight> starting with current...
  17 17:30:25 <stevenknight> 2048
  18 17:30:36 <GregoryNoel>  In the overlaps?
  19 17:31:00 <stevenknight> the "Current issues" spreadsheet?
  20 17:31:33 <GregoryNoel>  We should do the ones left over from last time first; it overlaps with the current issues
  21 17:31:49 <stevenknight> okay, point me to the list/spreadsheet you want to work from
  22 17:32:06 <garyo-home>   I guess that would be editlist2008, w/ 1874 first
  23 17:32:14 <GregoryNoel>  yep
  24 17:32:35 <stevenknight> go ahead, i've scrolled down
  25 17:32:45 <garyo-home>   ok, 1874: hasn't this been fixed multiple times before?
  26 17:33:10 *      bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.")
  27 17:33:12 <GregoryNoel>  Yes
  28 17:33:14 <garyo-home>   I think I fixed it myself a long time ago.
  29 17:33:27 <garyo-home>   Should've made a better test case I guess.
  30 17:33:46 <GregoryNoel>  Bill just left, but he was going to bring it up for discussion on the mailing list
  31 17:34:03 <GregoryNoel>  did it ever happen?  I don't remember it.
  32 17:34:13 <garyo-home>   Don't think so.
  33 17:34:33 <GregoryNoel>  And Steven is right that one size does not fit all.
  34 17:34:59 <garyo-home>   I seem to remember that I fixed it by ignoring "suffixes" that were all numeric, that's probably why ".4g" fails that test.
  35 17:35:21 <garyo-home>   Does this just have to be configurable?
  36 17:35:31 <GregoryNoel>  I don't see how
  37 17:35:30 <stevenknight> I think give it back to Bill and/or recategorize it as a doc issue
  38 17:35:43 <GregoryNoel>  I like doc issue
  39 17:35:52 <garyo-home>   there could be a "force suffix" option or something?
  40 17:36:06 <GregoryNoel>  Hmmm
  41 17:36:09 <stevenknight> that's File("name-with.odd-suffix")
  42 17:36:31 <GregoryNoel>  good point
  43 17:36:32 <stevenknight> oh, you mean on the Builder
  44 17:36:46 <garyo-home>   yeah I guess
  45 17:37:00 <GregoryNoel>  OK, a doc issue assigned to??
  46 17:37:14 <garyo-home>   I don't think it's just doc, is it?
  47 17:37:35 <GregoryNoel>  "If you don't like the suffix, use File()"
  48 17:37:56 <garyo-home>   OK, I could live with that for now, but I'd like a better solution for 2.x
  49 17:38:15 <GregoryNoel>  I would, too
  50 17:38:10 <stevenknight> back to Bill to really discuss on the mailing list
  51 17:38:34 <stevenknight> and/or doc the File() workaround
  52 17:38:30 <GregoryNoel>  OK, I'll make it, what, research?
  53 17:38:37 <stevenknight> yeah, research
  54 17:38:40 <GregoryNoel>  done
  55 17:38:45 <GregoryNoel>  next?
  56 17:38:54 <stevenknight> 1883
  57 17:39:09 <stevenknight> damn, i answered this in the other spreadsheet as well
  58 17:39:14 <stevenknight> my comment in editlist2008 is off
  59 17:39:22 <stevenknight> the last time we put it in we did have instaler issues
  60 17:39:34 <GregoryNoel>  What's up with Nathan?
  61 17:39:37 <stevenknight> but it was because distutils changed the location to the script/ subdirectory at the same time
  62 17:39:45 <stevenknight> I don't think it had anything to do with this App Paths thing
  63 17:39:58 <stevenknight> ???
  64 17:40:01 <stevenknight> oh, GSoC?
  65 17:40:13 <GregoryNoel>  Yes, we talked about assigning it to him
  66 17:40:39 <stevenknight> ah, right
  67 17:40:42 <garyo-home>   1883: what does the patch really do?  I can't see it.
  68 17:41:20 <stevenknight> it adds an entry to the Windows registry
  69 17:41:48 <stevenknight> IIRC it ends up making it so you can execute scons.bat w/out having to have the directory in %PATH%
  70 17:42:17 <stevenknight> Nathan has been sending me status reports, but I've not been giving him adequate attention yet
  71 17:42:20 <garyo-home>   That would be good; maybe it sets cmd.exe's AppPath or something I guess
  72 17:42:22 <stevenknight> so we could definitely assign it to him
  73 17:42:45 <garyo-home>   I never use scons.bat, but I could do so for testing this.
  74 17:42:47 <GregoryNoel>  OK, what's his account?
  75 17:43:15 <stevenknight> i'll look it up
  76 17:43:20 <stevenknight> let's move on while i search
  77 17:43:32 <garyo-home>   1925, then?
  78 17:43:46 <GregoryNoel>  Add it to the spreadsheet when you find it; I'll take care of it later
  79 17:44:01 <stevenknight> okay
  80 17:44:07 <stevenknight> 1925:  research, me
  81 17:44:24 <GregoryNoel>  done; next?
  82 17:44:32 <garyo-home>   OK, but not for 1.0 though
  83 17:44:53 <stevenknight> definitely not 1.0
  84 17:45:01 <GregoryNoel>  probably 2.x
  85 17:45:07 <stevenknight> 1958:  Bill's volunteering, consensus research
  86 17:45:29 <GregoryNoel>  done
  87 17:46:11 <garyo-home>   2000: I say 1.x but not the approach in the patch; should really figure it out.
  88 17:46:28 <GregoryNoel>  when?
  89 17:46:56 <garyo-home>   Low priority, so could be 2.x as far as I care
  90 17:47:02 <GregoryNoel>  1.x? or move to 2.x?
  91 17:47:35 <garyo-home>   I say 2.x because it'll just slow down real work
  92 17:47:37 <stevenknight> agree w/Gary, 1.x, low priority...  P4?
  93 17:47:46 <GregoryNoel>  p5
  94 17:47:50 <stevenknight> fair enough
  95 17:47:57 <GregoryNoel>  done; next?
  96 17:47:59 <stevenknight> do i hear p6?
  97 17:48:08 <GregoryNoel>  (no such!)
  98 17:48:10 <garyo-home>   :-)
  99 17:48:19 <stevenknight> going once, twice.... sold!
 100 17:48:43 <garyo-home>   ok, 2001?  (remove max_drift)
 101 17:48:58 <stevenknight> 2001:  research
 102 17:49:00 <GregoryNoel>  Narrow use; 2.x
 103 17:49:08 <garyo-home>   I don't use it, but it was meant to support NFS.
 104 17:49:26 <stevenknight> i'm inclined to give it back to Ken and let him lead a ML discussion to find out who's actually using it
 105 17:49:29 <stevenknight> if anyone
 106 17:49:35 <GregoryNoel>  And NFS now uses deltas, so it doesn't happen any more.
 107 17:49:38 <garyo-home>   Actually Greg if it can give a 25% speedup, I say get rid of it sooner
 108 17:49:50 <stevenknight> speedup++
 109 17:50:01 <garyo-home>   1.x, p2?
 110 17:50:12 *      stevenknight agrees
 111 17:50:22 <GregoryNoel>  ok
 112 17:50:44 <garyo-home>   2003 is weird
 113 17:50:46 <stevenknight> 2003:  agree w/Greg, wontfix
 114 17:50:52 <stevenknight> agree w/Gary, weird
 115 17:51:07 <garyo-home>   wontfix
 116 17:51:11 <GregoryNoel>  done
 117 17:51:37 <GregoryNoel>  last one?
 118 17:51:59 <garyo-home>   This will get fixed someday by Greg+Gary tool rewrite, but what about the near term?
 119 17:52:39 <garyo-home>   We can't use his patch as is, people don't expect CCFLAGS to get clobbered.
 120 17:53:06 <GregoryNoel>  Maybe it should be set by c-common setup, whatever it's called.
 121 17:53:34 <GregoryNoel>  er, no, bad idea
 122 17:53:53 <stevenknight> hmm, i took a quick look last night and i think his narrow fix of having mingw reset $CCFLAGS solves his specific symptom nicely with little impact
 123 17:54:02 <GregoryNoel>  This happens because one compiler is configured and then another configured on top of it
 124 17:54:15 <stevenknight> agreed that's the larger issue
 125 17:54:20 <garyo-home>   Right, but what if user sets CCFLAGS and then applies Tool('mingw')?
 126 17:54:35 <GregoryNoel>  He gets what he pays for.
 127 17:54:44 <stevenknight> they're no worse off than lots of other things that get set
 128 17:54:52 <stevenknight> $CCCOM, $CFLAGS, etc.
 129 17:54:56 <garyo-home>   Hmm, OK I see your point.
 130 17:55:10 <stevenknight> all that has to wait until your tool rewrite
 131 17:55:17 <garyo-home>   OK, 1.x then.
 132 17:55:21 <stevenknight> but we can make this one situation better in the meantime
 133 17:55:26 <GregoryNoel>  OK, what priority?
 134 17:55:36 <stevenknight> p2 or p3
 135 17:55:58 <garyo-home>   p3, it's only that one tool in that one case
 136 17:56:02 <GregoryNoel>  done; on to the next spreadsheet
 137 17:56:02 <stevenknight> okay
 138 17:56:24 <stevenknight> Current Issues, right?
 139 17:56:26 <garyo-home>   I like Ken's patch in 2048
 140 17:56:44 <stevenknight> gary, you think 1.0?
 141 17:56:51 <GregoryNoel>  destab
 142 17:57:00 <stevenknight> as in 0.98.5?
 143 17:57:01 <GregoryNoel>  destableizing
 144 17:57:06 <stevenknight> right, i'm worried abou stability on it
 145 17:57:12 <garyo-home>   Look at the code; it only does changes that one case.  But 1.x is fine w/ me.
 146 17:57:16 <GregoryNoel>  (ok, I still can't spell)
 147 17:58:02 <garyo-home>   1953, my current bete noire...
 148 17:58:03 <GregoryNoel>  1.x, what priority?
 149 17:58:05 <stevenknight> 1.x, give it to me for integration
 150 17:58:20 <garyo-home>   2048: p3?
 151 17:58:24 <stevenknight> p2, i agree that the patch is nice (modulo stability)
 152 17:58:32 <garyo-home>   ok, p2
 153 17:58:36 <GregoryNoel>  2048, ok
 154 17:59:13 <garyo-home>   Can we put 1953 in 1.0?
 155 17:59:35 <garyo-home>   At least to see if that fixes the problem?
 156 17:59:37 <stevenknight> that code looks safe enough to me
 157 17:59:52 <stevenknight> and there needs to be a 0.98.5 for other reasons anyway
 158 17:59:55 <stevenknight> 1.0, p2
 159 17:59:55 <GregoryNoel>  it was off the top of my head; don't take it literally
 160 18:00:07 <stevenknight> right, but it's clear a problem
 161 18:00:24 <stevenknight> and you point to the right sort of solution, even if the code ends up a little different
 162 18:00:26 <garyo-home>   and it *has* to be a threading thing because otherwise that error could not occur
 163 18:00:28 <GregoryNoel>  it still leaves the race, it just covers up the symptoms
 164 18:00:36 <garyo-home>   Greg: that is true.
 165 18:01:05 <stevenknight> an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance...  ;-)
 166 18:01:33 <garyo-home>   I'll be back in a bit -- at least you're at the part of the spreadsheet where I did my homework now :-)
 167 18:01:34 <GregoryNoel>  Gary, have you tried it?
 168 18:02:21 <GregoryNoel>  Why don't we assign it to you for research; if it seems to kill the problem, we'll try it for 1.0
 169 18:02:30 <GregoryNoel>  And he's gone....
 170 18:02:37 <stevenknight> yeah
 171 18:02:40 <stevenknight> research, me
 172 18:03:00 <GregoryNoel>  OK, I'm sure Gary will be willing to test it
 173 18:03:11 <stevenknight> agree about the underlying race for NodeInfo still being there; I'll add comments to that effect
 174 18:03:24 <stevenknight> in get_ninfo(), not just here
 175 18:03:39 <stevenknight> and/or in NodeInfo.__init__() or some such
 176 18:03:48 <GregoryNoel>  works for me
 177 18:03:59 <stevenknight> okay, looks like we covered the next set of overlaps
 178 18:04:03 <stevenknight> 1874, 1883
 179 18:04:05 <GregoryNoel>  skipping the overlaps to 1967?
 180 18:04:27 <stevenknight> right 1967
 181 18:04:30 <stevenknight> consensus future
 182 18:04:37 <GregoryNoel>  done
 183 18:04:40 <stevenknight> do we need an assigee?
 184 18:05:03 <GregoryNoel>  for that far in the future? no, I don't think so.  what priority?
 185 18:05:18 <stevenknight> leave it p3
 186 18:05:24 <GregoryNoel>  done;next?
 187 18:05:41 <stevenknight> skip 2000, 2001
 188 18:05:49 <GregoryNoel>  I'll take 2007
 189 18:05:50 <stevenknight> 2007:  1.x, you
 190 18:05:53 <GregoryNoel>  done
 191 18:06:19 <stevenknight> 2010:  2.x consensus
 192 18:06:21 <stevenknight> leave unassigned?
 193 18:06:28 <GregoryNoel>  yes to both
 194 18:06:57 <GregoryNoel>  I want to get a keyword for all of these so we can triage them further as a group.
 195 18:07:06 <GregoryNoel>  and assign them then
 196 18:07:05 <stevenknight> good idea
 197 18:07:18 <stevenknight> 2014:  i'm torn
 198 18:07:39 <GregoryNoel>  I don't understand why it's needed
 199 18:08:04 <stevenknight> right now we assume that no one else has corrupted the tree in between runs
 200 18:08:08 <stevenknight> not unreasonably
 201 18:08:10 <GregoryNoel>  either you trust the sig or you don't.
 202 18:08:51 <GregoryNoel>  if you don't trust it, always recalc, fine.
 203 18:09:05 <GregoryNoel>  but if you're going to try for optimizations, you have to trust it
 204 18:09:21 <stevenknight> hmm, i do see your point
 205 18:09:26 <GregoryNoel>  that's why Decider() has such a range of options
 206 18:09:31 <stevenknight> this was a bigger problem back when we were using build signatures
 207 18:09:51 <GregoryNoel>  but they're going away
 208 18:10:00 <stevenknight> and we could use signatures from the .sconsign file assuming no file corruption
 209 18:10:01 <GregoryNoel>  don't throw good effort after bad
 210 18:10:40 <GregoryNoel>  Uh, which file corrupted?  .sconign?
 211 18:11:06 <stevenknight> no, you build
 212 18:11:28 <stevenknight> then someone corrupts your .obj file (or copies a trojan into it)
 213 18:11:48 <stevenknight> and we could see the .c file hasn't change, so we don't rebuild the .obj
 214 18:12:06 <stevenknight> but then *use* that corrupt .obj to link a .exe
 215 18:12:13 <stevenknight> so this verification would be
 216 18:12:15 <GregoryNoel>  The sig wouldn't match, oh, I see,
 217 18:12:29 <stevenknight> right
 218 18:12:38 <GregoryNoel>  The new sig wouldn't match, but the old one could.
 219 18:12:40 <GregoryNoel>  hmmm
 220 18:13:22 <stevenknight> right, it starts to use the .sconsign signatures as a weak bill-of-materials of sorts
 221 18:14:01 <stevenknight> before you use the built targets from last time, please make sure that you think they really do match what you thought you built
 222 18:13:49 <GregoryNoel>  How about a Decider(always-recalc)?
 223 18:14:17 <stevenknight> something like that
 224 18:14:34 <GregoryNoel>  I could understand that but I'd do it as a Decider()
 225 18:14:42 <stevenknight> give it to me, 1.x, p3
 226 18:14:49 <GregoryNoel>  done
 227 18:15:13 <stevenknight> if it fits in Decider I'll do it that way
 228 18:15:58 <stevenknight> hmm, looks like i'll be able to go beyond 6:30 tonight
 229 18:16:12 <GregoryNoel>  Keep pushing...
 230 18:16:16 <stevenknight> we're stuck in traffic
 231 18:16:32 <stevenknight> likely because of an accident... :-(
 232 18:17:05 <GregoryNoel>  (I'll tell you my stuck-in-traffic story some day)
 233 18:16:36 <GregoryNoel>  2015
 234 18:17:06 <stevenknight> 1.x, me, p3
 235 18:17:47 <GregoryNoel>  ok, getting that scan for the dir source really needs to be fixed
 236 18:18:46 <GregoryNoel>  2016, consensus
 237 18:19:22 <stevenknight> yeah, 2.x
 238 18:19:50 <GregoryNoel>  2020: this isn't tool config, why our plan?
 239 18:20:31 <GregoryNoel>  oops, screen update, nevermind
 240 18:21:03 <stevenknight> sorry, what are we on?
 241 18:21:08 <stevenknight> 2016 is consensus 2.x, yes?
 242 18:21:12 <stevenknight> and I have 2018 next
 243 18:21:52 <GregoryNoel>  Yeah, the spreadsheet is giving me partial screen updates
 244 18:22:06 <stevenknight> okay
 245 18:22:33 <stevenknight> i think 2018 is pretty straightforward
 246 18:22:43 <stevenknight> 1.x seems reasonable
 247 18:22:45 <GregoryNoel>  I'm pretty sure that blanks are compressed out of all cmd-STR variables
 248 18:23:12 <GregoryNoel>  But I've broken the case where I was doing it, so I'm not positive.
 249 18:23:10 <stevenknight> if you want to confirm that I'll support INVALID
 250 18:23:24 <GregoryNoel>  me, research?
 251 18:23:45 <stevenknight> done
 252 18:24:15 <GregoryNoel>  2020, you, as specified, done
 253 18:24:15 <stevenknight> 2020:  me, 1.x, p...2?
 254 18:24:49 <stevenknight> 2021:  1.x, anyone else's choice of priority
 255 18:25:07 <GregoryNoel>  These File/Dir conflicts are new; something started them.  p2 is probbly OK
 256 18:25:40 <stevenknight> 2021 is actually the --debug=time + --interactive bug, not File/Dir
 257 18:26:18 <GregoryNoel>  Yeah, I don't type fast enough
 258 18:26:49 <stevenknight> no problem, just want to make sure we're getting right info on the right bug
 259 18:27:01 <GregoryNoel>  2021 p2 unless it's not simple, then p3 or p4
 260 18:27:20 <stevenknight> agreed
 261 18:27:23 <GregoryNoel>  done
 262 18:27:55 <stevenknight> 2022:  agree w/your plan, let David prioritize it relative to his time and other Fortran work
 263 18:28:04 <GregoryNoel>  2023, you research for dup?
 264 18:28:37 <stevenknight> yes
 265 18:28:49 <GregoryNoel>  2022, funny screen updates again, done
 266 18:29:30 <stevenknight> no problem
 267 18:29:33 <stevenknight> 2029:
 268 18:29:46 <GregoryNoel>  not a lot of yacc users, 2.x?
 269 18:29:59 <stevenknight> i could go for that
 270 18:30:13 <GregoryNoel>  assign to Gary?
 271 18:30:14 <stevenknight> we can always move it up if there's a groundswell
 272 18:30:20 <GregoryNoel>  agreed
 273 18:30:21 <stevenknight> yes
 274 18:30:24 <GregoryNoel>  done
 275 18:31:00 *      GregoryNoel stays silent for 2036
 276 18:31:05 <stevenknight> 2036:  consensus 2.x p2
 277 18:31:19 <GregoryNoel>  done
 278 18:31:23 <stevenknight> i completely agree we're way overdue for a better way to do this
 279 18:31:37 <stevenknight> assign it to either me or you and we can work out a reasonable interface between us
 280 18:31:45 <stevenknight> i'd be happy to implement, though
 281 18:32:08 <GregoryNoel>  I don't like DESTDIR; too inflexible, but we can discuss that elsewhere
 282 18:32:21 <stevenknight> i think you're right
 283 18:32:29 <stevenknight> 2037:  TASK
 284 18:32:36 <stevenknight> it's not product code at all
 285 18:33:03 <stevenknight> let Sohail check it in himself and you (or anyone else) can hack on it as necessary
 286 18:33:12 <GregoryNoel>  done; I fiddled with it today
 287 18:33:14 <garyo-home>   hi guys I'm back
 288 18:33:24 <stevenknight> hey there
 289 18:33:33 <stevenknight> we're up to 2041 on the "Current issues" spreadsheet
 290 18:33:38 <GregoryNoel>  and there's some nice test code in the attachment; Hi, Gary...
 291 18:33:53 <stevenknight> just in time for you to weigh in on it, it's an intelc.py thing
 292 18:34:03 <garyo-home>   OK.  yep, that sounds like mine.
 293 18:34:32 <stevenknight> okay, we got past the traffic slowdown, i think i've got another 5-10 minutes
 294 18:34:52 <garyo-home>   Don't know if it has to be as complicated as that patch though; I might just add an option so user could specify if needed.
 295 18:35:03 <stevenknight> 2041:  assign to gary, 1.x, p...3?
 296 18:35:05 <garyo-home>   Anyway assign it to me, 1.x, p2 or p3
 297 18:35:11 <GregoryNoel>  p3
 298 18:35:24 <GregoryNoel>  done
 299 18:35:46 <stevenknight> skip next (OVERLAP)
 300 18:35:47 <stevenknight> 2043
 301 18:35:50 <garyo-home>   2043 seems like a side project to me
 302 18:35:56 <stevenknight> 2.x, p4
 303 18:36:01 <stevenknight> we have plenty of real work to do
 304 18:36:05 <garyo-home>   OK, 2.x p4
 305 18:36:21 <GregoryNoel>  done; when shall we three meet again?
 306 18:36:25 <stevenknight> if they want to actually do the work i'd be okay with it going in earlier, too
 307 18:36:36 <GregoryNoel>  in lightning, thunder, or in rain?
 308 18:36:38 <stevenknight> 2044:
 309 18:36:45 <stevenknight> 1.x, p2 (if not p1)?
 310 18:36:48 <garyo-home>   Yes, 2044 should be 1.x or earlier
 311 18:36:54 <stevenknight> i'd say 1.0 but it's potentially destabilizing
 312 18:36:54 <GregoryNoel>  uh, that was a left parenthesis...
 313 18:36:57 <garyo-home>   UNC paths are important
 314 18:37:20 <stevenknight> if you want we could make it 1.0 and i could take a look at how bad it would be
 315 18:37:36 <stevenknight> i can always decide to push it back
 316 18:37:42 <GregoryNoel>  research?  I don't want to commit to 1.0
 317 18:37:58 <garyo-home>   I can run it here too.  Let's just look at the code carefully before putting it in 1.0.
 318 18:38:06 <stevenknight> i'd prefere 1.x over research to make sure it stays on more visible lists
 319 18:38:17 <GregoryNoel>  1.x p1?
 320 18:38:19 <stevenknight> research suggests "back burner" to me w.r.t. actually allocating time
 321 18:38:19 <garyo-home>   Yes, don't make it research
 322 18:38:24 <stevenknight> yeah, 1.x p1
 323 18:38:33 <garyo-home>   OK w/ that
 324 18:38:39 <GregoryNoel>  No, research means "figure this out and assign it to a milestone"
 325 18:39:05 <GregoryNoel>  Can we meet again tomorrow briefly if we don't finish today?
 326 18:39:05 <garyo-home>   Greg: technically you're right but we're close to 1.0 now so there's not much research time left
 327 18:39:09 <stevenknight> i agree conceptually, but in practice I deal with 1.0 before research
 328 18:39:28 <garyo-home>   Yes, I can do tomorrow night for a little while.  I'll finish the spreadsheet too.
 329 18:39:48 <GregoryNoel>  Just for this spreadsheet
 330 18:40:00 <stevenknight> 2046:  consensus 1.x p4
 331 18:40:03 <stevenknight> i can do tomorrow
 332 18:40:05 <garyo-home>   right, that's the last bit: 2046 to the end
 333 18:40:27 <stevenknight> okay, last few minutes for me
 334 18:40:36 <stevenknight> tomorrow night:  17:00 or 17:30?
 335 18:40:52 <garyo-home>   17:00 is better for me I think
 336 18:40:58 <stevenknight> that's fine for me
 337 18:41:00 <GregoryNoel>  either is fine by me
 338 18:41:04 <stevenknight> 17:00
 339 18:41:09 <garyo-home>   ok, done, see you then
 340 18:41:13 <stevenknight> sounds good
 341 18:41:15 <stevenknight> many thanks
 342 18:41:24 <GregoryNoel>  17h00 to use the standard, such as it is...
 343 18:41:34 <stevenknight> 17h00...  :-)
 344 18:41:38 <garyo-home>   right.
 345 18:41:39 <GregoryNoel>  2047?
 346 18:41:57 <garyo-home>   That's the one that a user was complaining about, right?
 347 18:42:09 <garyo-home>   How about warning instead of erroring?
 348 18:42:11 <stevenknight> yeah
 349 18:42:29 <GregoryNoel>  I'll buy a warning
 350 18:42:36 <stevenknight> 1.0?
 351 18:42:42 <GregoryNoel>  hmmm
 352 18:43:02 <garyo-home>   As long as adding the warning and keeping going is easy, then 1.0, else 1.x.
 353 18:43:05 <stevenknight> i'm more comfortable with 1.x, but this is pretty annoying
 354 18:43:26 <stevenknight> me, 1.0, p2
 355 18:43:32 <GregoryNoel>  1.x p1; if he finishes early, we can reconsider
 356 18:43:33 <garyo-home>   Put it in for 1.0 but if it gets tricky then reschedule for 1.x
 357 18:43:36 <stevenknight> if it looks risky i'll push it out
 358 18:43:44 <stevenknight> agreed
 359 18:43:53 <GregoryNoel>  which?
 360 18:43:59 <stevenknight> coming up to the bus stop, catch you guys tomorrow
 361 18:44:01 <stevenknight> 1.0
 362 18:44:13 <garyo-home>   ok, have a good night Steven!
 363 18:44:17 <stevenknight> 2047:  1.0, p2
 364 18:44:18 <GregoryNoel>  Let's pick up here; cul
 365 18:44:18 <stevenknight> l8r
 366 18:44:22 *      stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
 367 18:44:24 <garyo-home>   (pun not intended)
 368 18:44:47 <garyo-home>   ok Greg, I'll see you tomorrow as well.
 369 18:44:54 <GregoryNoel>  OK, cul
 370 18:45:02 <garyo-home>   bye

BugParty/IrcLog2008-05-19 (last edited 2008-05-20 19:16:20 by ip68-7-77-81)