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
