1 16:23:54 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-1-136.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
2 16:59:39 * jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1088933074.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #scons
3 17:00:32 <GregoryNoel> Steven and Gary have said they will be late; who else is here for the bug party?
4 17:00:52 <GregoryNoel> And Gary may not make it at all.
5 17:01:18 <jrandall> here, but after looking through the current list of bugs, there's not a lot I have to add to them
6 17:01:40 <jrandall> Had a hard time getting into 2007Q3. Any known problem with that spreadsheet?
7 17:02:08 <GregoryNoel> No, just the usual. Nobody has figured out the exact magic needed.
8 17:03:00 <jrandall> Hrm, I had it opened view-only in another tab, maybe that vexed it for some reason. I'll try again later to see if it likes me then
9 17:03:24 <GregoryNoel> Apparently, that's one no-no.
10 17:03:55 <GregoryNoel> Could you add that note to the ReadWrite page?
11 17:04:00 <jrandall> Sure thing
12 17:04:44 <GregoryNoel> Bill, are you there? Or was that an automatic connection?
13 17:06:40 <GregoryNoel> Apparently not. Only two isn't a quorum, but we can wait a bit and see if Steven or Gary show up.
14 17:06:48 <jrandall> Sure thing
15 17:06:48 * chit-chat while wating for quorum
16 17:12:54 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@c-69-181-234-155.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
17 17:13:12 <stevenknight> hi, who's here?
18 17:13:23 <GregoryNoel> nobody
19 17:13:31 <stevenknight> damn
20 17:13:39 <jrandall> aye, 'tis quiet
21 17:14:11 <GregoryNoel> Gary is caught at work and may not make it.
22 17:16:43 <bdbaddog> Hi All. I'm here til about 5:30ish.
23 17:17:00 <stevenknight> hi bill
24 17:17:09 <bdbaddog> Good Day!
25 17:17:31 <GregoryNoel> Hey, Bill.
26 17:17:13 <stevenknight> i just got connected myself, shall we dive into the current issues?
27 17:17:39 <GregoryNoel> Sure
28 17:17:38 <stevenknight> 2073: moot, already fixed
29 17:17:56 <stevenknight> 2074: consensus 2.x p2
30 17:18:14 <stevenknight> 2076: consensus 1.x p1
31 17:18:43 <GregoryNoel> Geeze, let me catch up.
32 17:19:20 <GregoryNoel> 2074, 2076, done
33 17:19:30 <GregoryNoel> 2077
34 17:19:37 <stevenknight> oh, 2076: we should assign to someone, yes?
35 17:19:54 <GregoryNoel> Assign Bill
36 17:20:01 <stevenknight> works for me
37 17:20:10 <bdbaddog> oh boy. imagine if I wasn't here.. ;)
38 17:20:17 <stevenknight> 2077: consensus 1.x
39 17:20:28 <stevenknight> two votes (kind of) for p4, any objections?
40 17:20:43 <GregoryNoel> Er, 2077 assign Bill; I'll look at 2076
41 17:20:56 <stevenknight> okay
42 17:20:57 <GregoryNoel> unless Bill wants it
43 17:21:35 <bdbaddog> nope. but I'll take a look at 2077. might be 2 weeks as I have trade show next week, before I get a chance.
44 17:21:45 <stevenknight> done
45 17:21:47 <GregoryNoel> done
46 17:22:03 <stevenknight> 2078: 1.x, p2, me (along with other Visual Studio / VC work)
47 17:22:21 <GregoryNoel> ok
48 17:22:39 <stevenknight> (the reprioritization after 1.0 is released is going to be fun...)
49 17:22:49 <stevenknight> 2079: 2.x, greg?
50 17:23:05 <GregoryNoel> Hmmm... OK, I guess
51 17:23:14 <GregoryNoel> what priority?
52 17:23:28 <stevenknight> sounds like you have a handle on it
53 17:23:37 <stevenknight> I don't quite grok why a File.Grep() method
54 17:23:54 <bdbaddog> it's like Glob() but with regular expressions..
55 17:24:00 <GregoryNoel> It's not obvious when to use f.name and str(f)
56 17:24:09 <stevenknight> as opposed to some more generic method that might also grep for Dir, Alias, Value...
57 17:24:27 <GregoryNoel> No, no, no, it looks at file contents.
58 17:24:39 <stevenknight> ah
59 17:24:41 <GregoryNoel> Like a scanner.
60 17:24:50 <bdbaddog> oh. I thought from the emails, the requestor wanted to grep the file names,not contents.
61 17:25:10 <stevenknight> yeah, like Filter (and FilterOut) in Ant
62 17:25:25 <GregoryNoel> No, he wanted to scan for 'int main(' to locate the main programs
63 17:25:28 <bdbaddog> o.k. never mind just reread.
64 17:25:44 <GregoryNoel> Maybe those are better names (FilterIn/Out)
65 17:25:55 <stevenknight> well, they imply matching names, not file contents
66 17:26:02 <GregoryNoel> Ah, true.
67 17:26:05 <bdbaddog> yes. sounds clearer, Grep makes me think Glob but Regex.
68 17:26:13 <stevenknight> i guess rather than add a special method (IMHO)
69 17:26:40 <GregoryNoel> (yes?)
70 17:26:47 <stevenknight> i'm more interested in giving File nodes a read() method
71 17:26:57 <GregoryNoel> Hmmmm......
72 17:26:58 <stevenknight> that looks like normal Python file objects
73 17:26:59 <bdbaddog> ahh. I like that even more.
74 17:27:12 <GregoryNoel> I think I do, too
75 17:27:14 <stevenknight> and then let people manipulate f1.read() using normal Python
76 17:27:41 <GregoryNoel> Yes, good idea. I'll write it up that way.
77 17:27:49 <stevenknight> okay, thanks
78 17:27:57 <GregoryNoel> next?
79 17:28:16 <stevenknight> 2080: TASK
80 17:28:32 <stevenknight> i forget, how are we marking items like this? 1.0 and just move them along?
81 17:28:39 <stevenknight> i.e., things that can be done any time
82 17:28:42 <GregoryNoel> How about David as a release team member?
83 17:28:50 <stevenknight> ++
84 17:28:58 <bdbaddog> I think he said he didn't have enough time though.
85 17:29:03 <GregoryNoel> No, I make up something
86 17:29:48 <stevenknight> ??
87 17:29:48 <GregoryNoel> I don't think being on the mailing list would be a problem; I'd appreciate his insight for the spreadsheets.
88 17:30:07 <stevenknight> agreed
89 17:30:12 <bdbaddog> sounds good.
90 17:30:40 <GregoryNoel> "make up something" === try to guess when it would be done; it's what the not-research items should be.
91 17:30:54 <stevenknight> okay
92 17:31:17 <stevenknight> 2081: consensus 1.x p2
93 17:31:29 <GregoryNoel> I can create something for backburner issues, but "backburner" is not a name that delights me.
94 17:31:51 <stevenknight> "backburner" to me would be implied by the priority
95 17:32:02 <stevenknight> since the target milestone is really about timeframe
96 17:32:07 <stevenknight> how about an explicit "anytime"
97 17:32:09 <stevenknight> ?
98 17:32:20 <GregoryNoel> Hmmm.... I'll look at that
99 17:32:24 <stevenknight> okay
100 17:32:34 <GregoryNoel> 2081: done
101 17:33:12 <GregoryNoel> 2082: split between p2 and p4
102 17:33:15 <stevenknight> 2082: i meant 1.x
103 17:33:18 <GregoryNoel> (both 1.x)
104 17:33:41 <stevenknight> so 1.x, and p3? (split the difference)
105 17:33:47 <bdbaddog> Looks like just needs some tests to be able to be applied right?
106 17:33:56 <bdbaddog> Do we have much coverage on rc files?
107 17:34:18 <stevenknight> not a lot
108 17:34:23 <stevenknight> i was just dealing with rc file today
109 17:34:34 <stevenknight> so i'd put my name on this one, too
110 17:34:39 <GregoryNoel> works
111 17:35:03 <bdbaddog> O.k I"m a pumpkin. I've gotta head to class.
112 17:35:04 <stevenknight> 2083: looks like consensus 1.x p2
113 17:35:08 <bdbaddog> Good evening to all.
114 17:35:10 <stevenknight> later
115 17:35:13 * bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.")
116 17:36:05 <GregoryNoel> 2083: yeah, but we need to talk about the model.
117 17:36:16 <stevenknight> fire away
118 17:36:28 <stevenknight> or did you mean on the ML?
119 17:36:25 <GregoryNoel> Maybe not right now, but there needs to be some agreement on how to do it.
120 17:36:45 <stevenknight> okay
121 17:37:09 <GregoryNoel> ML would be fine; the last time I wrote a suggestion about it, it just died away, and I still don't have any real ideas
122 17:37:34 <stevenknight> yeah, i may be the only one who cares about it in practice
123 17:37:44 <stevenknight> purely because of wanting to do everything that Make does... :-)
124 17:37:46 <GregoryNoel> No, I do
125 17:37:58 <stevenknight> no, i mean cares whether there is a mechanism that works
126 17:38:06 <stevenknight> i think most people want it to just go away... :-)
127 17:38:05 <GregoryNoel> The real problem is less-than-clean removals
128 17:38:17 <stevenknight> ah, right
129 17:39:08 <GregoryNoel> If it were only creating "cleaner" levels, it would be easy, but you want to be able to clean out, say, just the intermediate files
130 17:39:17 <stevenknight> right
131 17:39:40 <GregoryNoel> I just don't have any good idea for how to do thatt.
132 17:39:45 <stevenknight> so for now: 1.x, p2, and either you or I to lead discussion (even if it's just between the two of us)?
133 17:39:52 <GregoryNoel> works
134 17:40:03 <stevenknight> either that or "research" since we're still not sure
135 17:40:23 <stevenknight> your choice, 1.x or research
136 17:40:48 <GregoryNoel> 1.x; that'll force us to look at it at a specific time
137 17:40:52 <stevenknight> good
138 17:41:02 <stevenknight> 2084: i'm clueless
139 17:41:07 <GregoryNoel> 2084, where's Gary?
140 17:41:17 <stevenknight> we could make it research, garyo
141 17:41:29 <stevenknight> just so he doesn't escape completely unscathed by not showing up... :-)
142 17:41:35 <GregoryNoel> I'll buy that!
143 17:41:43 <stevenknight> done
144 17:41:49 <jrandall> lol
145 17:42:20 <stevenknight> 2085: 1.0, p4 (split difference), me
146 17:42:28 <GregoryNoel> done
147 17:42:53 <stevenknight> i have doc changes teed up for once i get 0.98.5 out (I hope later this evening, this past weekend was overrun by daughter's birthday)
148 17:43:12 <GregoryNoel> Happy birthday; daughters are dangerous
149 17:43:30 <stevenknight> oh my goodness yes
150 17:43:34 <GregoryNoel> how old?
151 17:43:39 <stevenknight> 10
152 17:43:44 <GregoryNoel> ouch!
153 17:44:05 <GregoryNoel> I remember my niece at ten.... oh, my, are you in for it!
154 17:44:25 <stevenknight> yeah, I'm right on the cusp of going from being cool Dad to the biggest dork in the world
155 17:44:46 <stevenknight> mind you, that last bit isn't much of a stretch...
156 17:45:20 <stevenknight> anyway, 2007 q2?
157 17:45:32 <GregoryNoel> er, q3?
158 17:45:41 <stevenknight> oh, right, q3
159 17:45:48 <stevenknight> i was working ahead a little on q2
160 17:46:20 <GregoryNoel> 1869
161 17:46:51 <stevenknight> ?
162 17:46:55 <stevenknight> i have 1687 as the first?
163 17:47:01 <GregoryNoel> fixed
164 17:47:08 <stevenknight> ah
165 17:47:39 <stevenknight> 1689: consensus 1.x,
166 17:47:55 <stevenknight> p2?
167 17:48:14 <GregoryNoel> Another one that needs some discussion after a bit of research, but
168 17:48:27 <GregoryNoel> p2 is a reasonable time to do it.
169 17:48:27 <stevenknight> right
170 17:48:43 <GregoryNoel> OK, done
171 17:49:08 <stevenknight> assign to...? you (maybe ParseConfig), me (I might know what's going on), leave blank for now?
172 17:49:41 <GregoryNoel> blank, actually issues@scons
173 17:49:55 <stevenknight> okay
174 17:50:09 <GregoryNoel> I don't think it was backtick
175 17:50:27 <stevenknight> maybe not
176 17:50:04 <stevenknight> 1690: research, me (Visual Studio stuff)
177 17:50:40 <GregoryNoel> 1690, done
178 17:50:52 <stevenknight> 1691: documentation, 1.0, me
179 17:51:14 <GregoryNoel> done
180 17:51:28 <stevenknight> 1692: research, me (Visual Studio again)
181 17:51:29 <GregoryNoel> may need to follow up to see what the message was
182 17:51:40 <GregoryNoel> 1692, done
183 17:51:52 <stevenknight> 1693: consensus 1.x p2
184 17:52:08 <GregoryNoel> done
185 17:52:09 <stevenknight> good manageable bug for someone else to take
186 17:52:15 <GregoryNoel> yes
187 17:52:28 <stevenknight> 1697: research, me (Visual Studio)
188 17:52:47 <GregoryNoel> okay
189 17:53:16 <GregoryNoel> 1701, ditto
190 17:53:17 <stevenknight> 1701: research, me (Visual Studio)
191 17:53:19 <stevenknight> right
192 17:53:20 <GregoryNoel> done
193 17:53:34 <stevenknight> it isn't the pipes thing, it has to do with how we look in the #*@&(#$ registry for various info
194 17:53:56 <stevenknight> 1702: same...
195 17:54:02 <GregoryNoel> 1702, ditto
196 17:54:10 <stevenknight> man, there's a lot of Visual Studio cruft piling up
197 17:54:26 <stevenknight> I'm really itching to get in there and clean this stuff up
198 17:54:50 <stevenknight> 1703:
199 17:54:52 <GregoryNoel> Do you want a keyword for it? I can set it up, but you'll have to assign them all.
200 17:54:56 <stevenknight> not sure about my 1.x p3
201 17:55:04 <stevenknight> keyword: yes
202 17:55:17 <stevenknight> "VisualStudio" seems logical
203 17:55:30 <GregoryNoel> do you mean 1704?
204 17:55:39 <stevenknight> oh, yes 1704:
205 17:56:00 <stevenknight> 1704: seems like if it were really crucial more people would have asked for it
206 17:56:07 <stevenknight> i only know of this one patch
207 17:56:19 <stevenknight> on the other hand, it kind of goes along with what Russel was saying on the ML today
208 17:56:33 <stevenknight> about how SCons really doesn't have much traction in the Java community
209 17:56:35 <GregoryNoel> There was something on the mailing list about JAR() recently, maybe today?
210 17:56:46 <GregoryNoel> oops, you already said that
211 17:56:47 <stevenknight> yeah, Russel's threads
212 17:57:00 <stevenknight> let's leave it p3
213 17:57:06 <stevenknight> since there's already a patch
214 17:57:07 <GregoryNoel> OK
215 17:57:25 <stevenknight> if we ever are going to do better with Java, it can't hurt to have this already supported
216 17:57:32 <GregoryNoel> Maybe draft a Java specialist to keep us on track
217 17:57:50 <GregoryNoel> Maybe Russel?
218 17:57:58 <stevenknight> maybe
219 17:58:09 <stevenknight> he tends to appear and reapper in fits and starts
220 17:58:14 <stevenknight> disappear i mean
221 17:58:47 <GregoryNoel> I'll write him about creating a wiki page with what's needed for Java support
222 17:58:56 <stevenknight> hmm, i thought i recalled there was someone else who showed up on the ML with some Java knowledge a month or two ago
223 17:59:09 <stevenknight> maybe i'm making that up
224 17:59:22 <stevenknight> well, it can't hurt to ask, anyway
225 17:59:24 <GregoryNoel> No, I have his name
226 17:59:37 <GregoryNoel> I'll ask them both
227 17:59:43 <stevenknight> good idea re: wiki page
228 17:59:49 <stevenknight> sounds good
229 18:00:35 <GregoryNoel> anyway, what did we decide about 1704?
230 18:01:04 <GregoryNoel> 1.x, p2, you?
231 18:01:21 <stevenknight> done
232 18:01:58 <stevenknight> 1705: 1.x, jim ... p3?
233 18:02:05 <GregoryNoel> or p2
234 18:02:09 <jrandall> Aye - I've got a patch in that fixes it
235 18:02:24 <stevenknight> jrandall++
236 18:02:32 <GregoryNoel> bravo!
237 18:02:47 <GregoryNoel> p2 then?
238 18:02:48 <jrandall> thanks.
239 18:02:52 <stevenknight> yeah, p2
240 18:02:55 <GregoryNoel> done
241 18:03:23 <stevenknight> 1706: 1.x, but now i'm not sure of priority
242 18:03:50 <GregoryNoel> I'll look at it, maybe p4?
243 18:04:02 <GregoryNoel> It's part of getting symlinks right.
244 18:04:16 <stevenknight> sure, 1.x, p4, you
245 18:04:21 <GregoryNoel> done
246 18:04:44 <stevenknight> 1707: consensus 2.x p4
247 18:04:53 <GregoryNoel> done, or future?
248 18:05:26 <stevenknight> hmm, i'm torn
249 18:05:38 <stevenknight> part of me says future because no one seems to have asked for it
250 18:05:47 <stevenknight> but maybe 2.x because there's already code
251 18:06:06 <GregoryNoel> Yeah, but infected
252 18:07:12 <GregoryNoel> Let's leave it at 2.x p4 and revisit later
253 18:07:24 <stevenknight> okay
254 18:07:31 <GregoryNoel> 1708, I'll go with Ken to look at it.
255 18:08:00 <stevenknight> 1708: okay
256 18:08:15 <stevenknight> I may need to take it back if he doesn't pop up again
257 18:08:26 <stevenknight> but we should at least see if he can take it
258 18:08:27 <GregoryNoel> If he doesn't like it, he can kick it elsewhere.
259 18:08:32 <stevenknight> yeah
260 18:08:38 <GregoryNoel> I'll put that in the note.
261 18:08:43 <stevenknight> okay
262 18:09:14 <GregoryNoel> 1711, quite a mix
263 18:09:18 <stevenknight> 1711: yeah
264 18:09:30 <stevenknight> when in doubt, shade to the earlier target
265 18:09:37 <GregoryNoel> Huh?
266 18:09:46 <GregoryNoel> Oh, I see.
267 18:09:55 <stevenknight> i tend to go with the earlier/earliest milestone
268 18:10:26 <stevenknight> i'd rather make sure it gets considered and reprioritize to later if necessary
269 18:10:27 <GregoryNoel> Let's make it 1.x then and give it to Gary, since he's not here
270 18:10:48 <GregoryNoel> p3?
271 18:10:53 <stevenknight> ah, good idea -- he's done subst stuff
272 18:10:54 <stevenknight> yes, p3
273 18:10:58 <GregoryNoel> done
274 18:11:17 <stevenknight> 1712: 2.x, p3
275 18:11:27 <stevenknight> perhaps Benoit if we want to assign it
276 18:11:32 <stevenknight> he's good at things like this
277 18:12:00 <GregoryNoel> I'd want measurements. I don't think scanners are that slow.
278 18:12:19 <stevenknight> good point, they're probably not
279 18:12:26 <jrandall> Aye. Not clear where the tradeoff would be as to whether it'd be worth it or not
280 18:12:37 <jrandall> Most of mine, it wouldn't be worth spawning
281 18:12:46 <stevenknight> actually, (off topic) i have an optimization i'm thinking of that I'd like to discuss with you some time
282 18:13:02 <stevenknight> let's get through bugs first though
283 18:13:19 <GregoryNoel> In fact, I think a small rewrite so that scanners overlap with the previous command would cure it.
284 18:13:36 <GregoryNoel> I do that in TaskmasterNG
285 18:13:42 <jrandall> nice
286 18:13:43 <stevenknight> oh, very cool
287 18:13:48 <stevenknight> simple and effective
288 18:14:14 <stevenknight> 1714: 1.x, p3
289 18:14:15 <GregoryNoel> Is that the optimization?
290 18:14:59 <stevenknight> no, it's basically trying to make searching CPPPATH O(1) instead of O(n)
291 18:15:06 <GregoryNoel> 1714, agreed, but spin off JAR to another issue
292 18:15:16 <stevenknight> 1714: agreed
293 18:15:26 <stevenknight> 1.x, p3, garyo
294 18:15:38 <stevenknight> could also go to Russel or whoever gets to be Java guru
295 18:15:53 <GregoryNoel> done; I'll note that
296 18:16:13 <GregoryNoel> OT: yes, they should be hashed better.
297 18:16:16 <stevenknight> good
298 18:16:43 <stevenknight> OT: actually, even beyond that, the search is attached to the wrong object
299 18:16:51 <GregoryNoel> 1717, you, VS
300 18:17:07 <GregoryNoel> OT: yes, I've noticed that
301 18:17:08 <stevenknight> 1717: yes
302 18:17:15 <GregoryNoel> done
303 18:17:41 <stevenknight> 1722: it's Bill's, let's WONTFIX it... :-)
304 18:17:52 <GregoryNoel> 1720, has Bill left?
305 18:18:05 <GregoryNoel> oops, 1722
306 18:18:10 <stevenknight> yeah he's gone
307 18:18:19 <stevenknight> so he gets what he deserves... :-)
308 18:18:27 <GregoryNoel> OK, WONTFIX unless he provides a test case
309 18:18:37 <stevenknight> done
310 18:19:00 <stevenknight> 1723: can this be part of the toolchain stuff you and Gary have on the backburner?
311 18:19:10 <GregoryNoel> yes
312 18:19:15 <stevenknight> oh, yeah, your comment even *says* that...
313 18:19:21 <GregoryNoel> yup
314 18:19:32 <stevenknight> future, you?
315 18:19:36 <GregoryNoel> done
316 18:19:51 <stevenknight> 1730: 1.x, p3, Rob?
317 18:20:33 <GregoryNoel> Uh, maybe not Rob
318 18:21:11 <GregoryNoel> Oops, I was thinking of another issue; yes, Rob.
319 18:21:19 <stevenknight> okay
320 18:21:27 <GregoryNoel> It's a little out of his area, but he can work with you.
321 18:21:56 <stevenknight> okay
322 18:22:21 <stevenknight> 1735: research, Rob?
323 18:22:30 <GregoryNoel> 1735, what if it's still a bug? Where to put it?
324 18:22:56 <stevenknight> I'm agnostic -- 1.x p3?
325 18:23:22 <GregoryNoel> works; I'll tell him to contact me if he needs to
326 18:23:27 <stevenknight> done
327 18:23:39 <stevenknight> 1716: research, me, VisualStudio
328 18:23:57 <GregoryNoel> done; quit for the evening?
329 18:24:02 <stevenknight> yeah, i have to run
330 18:24:06 <stevenknight> real quick re: CPPPATH
331 18:24:06 * off-topic discussion between stevenknight and GregoryNoel
332 18:30:36 <stevenknight> okay, really gotta run
333 18:30:39 <stevenknight> thanks!
334 18:30:39 <GregoryNoel> When shall we all meet again?
335 18:30:39 <GregoryNoel> In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
336 18:30:39 <GregoryNoel> Where the place, ... same time next week?
337 18:30:52 <stevenknight> oh, damn, that's right
338 18:30:57 <stevenknight> yes, default, same time and place
339 18:31:01 <GregoryNoel> done; cu
340 18:31:05 <stevenknight> l8r
341 18:31:06 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
342 18:31:07 <jrandall> see you
343 18:31:09 * jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1088933074.dsl.bell.ca) has left #scons
344
