Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   1 18:53:15 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
   2 18:58:55 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.131) has joined #scons
   3 19:00:04 <GregNoel>	Hi, Steven.  Gary has said he would likely be late; anybody else here for the bug party?
   4 19:00:21 <stevenknight>	i don't see Bill, and he's the other stalwart
   5 19:00:57 <GregNoel>	And only you and I commented in the spreadsheet, and you didn't finish.
   6 19:00:59 <stevenknight>	i'm just getting into the Current Issues spreadsheet -- I'm taking th late shuttle home tonight
   7 19:01:08 <stevenknight>	right, just catching up
   8 19:01:17 <stevenknight>	the existing comments were mine from last week
   9 19:02:03 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
  10 19:02:13 <GregNoel>	Gary's not that late, after all
  11 19:02:24 <garyo-home>	Hi Greg.
  12 19:02:44 <garyo-home>	Hi, Steven.
  13 19:02:55 <GregNoel>	Hey, Gary.  You said you would be late.
  14 19:03:23 <garyo-home>	Snuck out just in time, or mostly.
  15 19:03:43 <GregNoel>	I think Steven is in a different window, updating the current issues spreadsheet; he should be back soon.
  16 19:03:36 <stevenknight>	hey gary
  17 19:03:39 <garyo-home>	Hi
  18 19:03:43 <stevenknight>	how'd your release go last week?
  19 19:03:56 <stevenknight>	GregNoel's ESP ++
  20 19:04:12 <garyo-home>	Release went great.  I haven't got a lot of time for scons these days due to things at work.
  21 19:04:31 <garyo-home>	We're growing the company, got new investors, new CEO... lots of new & exciting stuff
  22 19:04:39 <garyo-home>	but it takes up all my time & then some.
  23 19:04:43 <GregNoel>	The disadvantage of working for a living...
  24 19:04:55 <garyo-home>	...says the retired Unix guru.
  25 19:05:03 <GregNoel>	{;-}
  26 19:05:03 <stevenknight>	:-)
  27 19:05:27 <garyo-home>	So anyway, that's all in apology for the fact that I haven't touched the spreadsheets.
  28 19:05:20 <stevenknight>	well, shall we make as good use of the time as we can, then?
  29 19:05:39 <garyo-home>	Yes, let's dive in.  Current issues first?
  30 19:05:42 <stevenknight>	i might disconnect briefly in ~10 minutes, i have to transfer shuttles
  31 19:05:45 <stevenknight>	yes current issues
  32 19:05:47 <GregNoel>	2124
  33 19:06:12 <stevenknight>	1.x p3 me
  34 19:06:20 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me.
  35 19:06:23 <GregNoel>	I admit a traceback is unfriendly, and something should be done about that, but the problem is that ...
  36 19:06:34 <stevenknight>	parts of the VS revamp will try to clean up some general windows issues
  37 19:06:40 <GregNoel>	he's really using a different name for the file.
  38 19:07:08 <GregNoel>	With that said, 1.x p3 makes as much sense as anything.
  39 19:07:23 <stevenknight>	okay, let's go with it
  40 19:07:27 <GregNoel>	done
  41 19:07:29 *	bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
  42 19:07:36 <GregNoel>	Hey, Bill.
  43 19:07:39 <garyo-home>	2121 has come up a few times on the list, right?
  44 19:07:41 <garyo-home>	Hi Bill.
  45 19:07:51 <stevenknight>	Bill!
  46 19:08:29 <GregNoel>	Yes, and I think there may be dups, but I couldn't find them.
  47 19:08:41 <stevenknight>	what is there about the confusing VariantDir feature that *hasn't* come up a few times on the list?
  48 19:08:46 <garyo-home>	The patch seems reasonable on the face of it.
  49 19:09:05 <GregNoel>	(patch?)
  50 19:09:19 <garyo-home>	212 has a patch and a test.
  51 19:09:23 <garyo-home>	sorry 2121.
  52 19:10:07 <GregNoel>	Ah, it looks like that came along after I commented.
  53 19:10:09 <garyo-home>	Anyway, I agree w/ you guys on 1.x p2.
  54 19:10:38 <GregNoel>	Yes, 1.x p2 is even stronger with a patch to work from.
  55 19:10:50 <stevenknight>	yeah, 1.x p2 -- the patch looks good (haven't looked at the test case) and should be rewarded
  56 19:10:59 <garyo-home>	ok, good.
  57 19:11:01 <GregNoel>	done
  58 19:11:54 <garyo-home>	2122 is a way not to have to use src_builder iiuc?
  59 19:12:04 <stevenknight>	right, essentially
  60 19:12:13 <stevenknight>	let you add new src_builders dynamically
  61 19:12:13 <GregNoel>	I don't know if this is the best API, but I agree that it something should be done.
  62 19:12:45 <stevenknight>	and with some supported API so everyone doesn't have to cut-and-paste all the obj_builder stuff that's initialized in Tool/__init__.py
  63 19:12:43 <GregNoel>	I published the long-promised requirements for better messages earlier today; that has a comment about this issue.
  64 19:13:10 <stevenknight>	sounds good; i'll take a look when we're done
  65 19:13:12 <garyo-home>	func name is maybe not perfect but yes something like this is good.
  66 19:13:50 <stevenknight>	any objections to sticking with 1.x p3?
  67 19:13:50 <GregNoel>	I think better messages and this are indirectly related, so fixing one will have an impact on both
  68 19:14:04 <garyo-home>	But since it's an enhancement, I'd say low pri for 1.x (p3 max) or else later.
  69 19:14:27 <GregNoel>	My suggestion is the same as better messages, and I don't remember what that was assigned.
  70 19:14:53 <garyo-home>	1458?
  71 19:15:08 <garyo-home>	um, nope.
  72 19:15:09 <stevenknight>	greg, what was the thread from earlier today re: better messages?
  73 19:15:12 <stevenknight>	you have me intrigued now
  74 19:15:28 <GregNoel>	wiki BetterMessages
  75 19:15:35 <stevenknight>	okay
  76 19:15:36 <stevenknight>	2123:
  77 19:15:51 <stevenknight>	consensus 1.x p2 ?
  78 19:15:58 <GregNoel>	fine with me
  79 19:16:09 <stevenknight>	who?
  80 19:16:11 <garyo-home>	ok.  I can probably do it.
  81 19:16:42 <garyo-home>	It looks pretty easy.
  82 19:16:42 <stevenknight>	okay, thanks -- just added your name to the spreadsheet
  83 19:16:45 <stevenknight>	2125:
  84 19:17:30 <GregNoel>	2122: http://scons.org/wiki/BetterErrorMessages
  85 19:17:41 <garyo-home>	2125: if Tools inherited from a base class, they wouldn't have to implement exists().
  86 19:18:09 <stevenknight>	have to switch buses, might drop momentarily
  87 19:18:46 <garyo-home>	... and if they were subclasses it'd be easy to see what's a Tool.
  88 19:18:51 <GregNoel>	Tools are not classes; they're modules (i.e., imported)
  89 19:19:34 <garyo-home>	Yeah (though there are other types, but classes aren't among them).  I guess we can't really change that.
  90 19:20:01 <GregNoel>	Not easily; there's also the backward-compatible issue.
  91 19:20:22 <garyo-home>	A module can inherit stuff, but doing that just to avoid writing 'return True' seems overkill.
  92 19:20:52 <garyo-home>	I think this bug is making a mountain out of a molehill; should be 2.x low pri if anything.
  93 19:21:25 <garyo-home>	Greg, what you say in the ssheet is spot on.
  94 19:21:42 <GregNoel>	I agree; it's overkill.  That's why I suggested wontfix.
  95 19:21:52 <garyo-home>	I agree, wontfix.
  96 19:22:13 <GregNoel>	If Steven makes it back without dropping, we can have a consensus.
  97 19:22:38 *	sgk_ (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.135) has joined #scons
  98 19:22:46 <garyo-home>	.. and here he is now.
  99 19:22:50 <sgk_>	I'm back -- thought I was still connected but I guess not
 100 19:22:54 <GregNoel>	We'll probably be changing this interface with the toolchain stuff, but I'd like to leave it until then.
 101 19:23:09 <sgk_>	still on the exists() thing?
 102 19:23:14 <GregNoel>	Yes
 103 19:23:11 <garyo-home>	Greg & I say "wontfix" 2125.
 104 19:23:16 <garyo-home>	yes, exists().
 105 19:23:35 <sgk_>	do new-style classes allow it to be treated like gary was suggested (re: subclassing)?
 106 19:23:45 <sgk_>	old-style classes definitely didn't
 107 19:24:04 <garyo-home>	don't know
 108 19:24:06 <GregNoel>	I don't think so...
 109 19:24:15 <sgk_>	okay, well not terribly important
 110 19:24:41 <GregNoel>	do we have a consensus?
 111 19:24:46 <sgk_>	this was from a colleague lobbying me re: all the cut-and-paste "def exists(): return True" at the bottom of all the written modules
 112 19:24:58 <sgk_>	wontfix is fine with me
 113 19:25:10 <garyo-home>	you can blame it on us.
 114 19:25:22 <GregNoel>	yeah, we're hardcore
 115 19:25:34 <sgk_>	lol
 116 19:25:43 <GregNoel>	2126?
 117 19:25:44 <sgk_>	2126 then:
 118 19:26:11 <sgk_>	no real strong feelings so far -- any reason not to leave it 1.x p4?
 119 19:26:11 <garyo-home>	Having these as functions would be nice, I say 1.x p4
 120 19:26:25 <sgk_>	done
 121 19:26:28 <sgk_>	2127:
 122 19:26:40 <GregNoel>	Moving to Python 2.2 would allow these to be written as simple names,
 123 19:26:51 <GregNoel>	but that would require waiting until 2.x
 124 19:27:04 <sgk_>	ah, that should be at least noted in the issue
 125 19:27:12 <GregNoel>	OK, wilco
 126 19:27:15 <sgk_>	i'll add a comment in the background here
 127 19:28:18 <sgk_>	2127:
 128 19:28:53 <GregNoel>	2127, I'd like to spin this off onto someone who has the background with all the variations.
 129 19:29:23 <garyo-home>	I do, but even with that it's not clear what the right answer is.
 130 19:29:23 <GregNoel>	But who?  I surely don't.
 131 19:29:32 <bdbaddog>	Good evening all.
 132 19:29:52 <garyo-home>	If a user says RPATH=XXX, should we try to provide those semantics by jiggling other linker args?
 133 19:29:57 <GregNoel>	Hey, Bill...
 134 19:30:01 <garyo-home>	Hi, Bill.
 135 19:30:29 <bdbaddog>	Greetings finally back from HI, and then OC. phew.
 136 19:30:41 <GregNoel>	Somehow, autoconf figures it out, since they support rpath, but ...
 137 19:30:44 <sgk_>	sounds like there's enough uncertainty that 2127 should either be a research for someone
 138 19:30:55 <GregNoel>	... the complexity looks intimidating.
 139 19:31:20 <garyo-home>	I'll be happy to research it.  But at some point scons has to say "this compiler doesn't support RPATH (or not well enough)" and punt.
 140 19:31:25 <GregNoel>	Your research or my research?  They're different.
 141 19:31:21 <sgk_>	or a 1.x-p3-and-reprioritize if "research" is too much of a backburner
 142 19:31:40 <GregNoel>	Ah, your research.
 143 19:31:45 <sgk_>	yours (i.e., should be investigated)
 144 19:31:49 <garyo-home>	I have a bunch of Macs with different OSes, so I can at least poke them all.
 145 19:31:49 <sgk_>	heh
 146 19:31:58 <sgk_>	okay, garyo research
 147 19:32:15 <GregNoel>	My research takes priority over 1.0, i.e., research it now.
 148 19:32:24 <sgk_>	i think research should be Greg's interpretation (AIIU, investigate for reprioritization)
 149 19:32:31 <sgk_>	but in practice that doesn't seem how we're handling it
 150 19:32:38 <sgk_>	right
 151 19:32:51 <GregNoel>	but if Gary wants to do it, I'll let him have it.
 152 19:33:04 <GregNoel>	garyo research
 153 19:33:05 <garyo-home>	(Hmm, do I have any research items?  Not sure...) what I want is 1.x research (i.e. research as a priority)
 154 19:33:05 <sgk_>	okay, gary, research
 155 19:33:30 <sgk_>	that's kind of what I've morphed 1.x p3 into, mentally
 156 19:33:34 <garyo-home>	but I'll get something done on it.
 157 19:33:47 <GregNoel>	no, research and 1.x are both milestones; can't change the names of the priorities.
 158 19:33:51 <sgk_>	I figure we're going to have a big reprioritization of 1.x issues at some point
 159 19:33:57 <sgk_>	to break them down into manageable chunks
 160 19:34:04 <sgk_>	cause there's just too much there right now
 161 19:34:12 <GregNoel>	You do have a talent for understatement {;-}
 162 19:34:44 <garyo-home>	oh well, that just means there may be lots of 1.x's
 163 19:34:59 <garyo-home>	(or we slip things til 2.0 of course)
 164 19:35:16 <GregNoel>	Aye, there's the slip, er, rub
 165 19:35:21 <garyo-home>	anyway, 2128 is next...
 166 19:35:29 <sgk_>	maybe.  we need to discuss releasing 1.0 (I think 0.98.5 has baked enough)
 167 19:35:32 <GregNoel>	2128, David
 168 19:35:45 <sgk_>	and when/how to branch so there's a place for relevant dev work
 169 19:35:54 <sgk_>	2128:  david
 170 19:36:04 <garyo-home>	2128 Includes doc patch, I say 1.0 or 1.0.x.
 171 19:36:15 <GregNoel>	True, but not quite yet; one issue later may need to be slipped in.
 172 19:36:23 <garyo-home>	Steven: yes, it's getting to that point.
 173 19:36:48 <garyo-home>	We can branch it any time and just merge things that need to go in.
 174 19:37:00 <GregNoel>	You're looking at 2129; no patch for 2128
 175 19:37:10 <sgk_>	2128:  1.0 for the doc patch
 176 19:37:19 <sgk_>	?  i see an attachment to 2128
 177 19:37:23 <garyo-home>	me too.
 178 19:37:39 <garyo-home>	a trivial two-liner.
 179 19:37:53 <sgk_>	2129 is another david Fortran thing, though
 180 19:38:22 <garyo-home>	2129: wow, a patch which is *just* a test.
 181 19:38:27 <sgk_>	2129:  anyone, anytime (it's an added test)
 182 19:38:29 <GregNoel>	Yeah, but is it the doc or the implementation?
 183 19:38:45 <garyo-home>	2128: doc.  2129: test for implementation.
 184 19:39:02 <sgk_>	no, greg's suggesting that although 2128 might "fix" the doc,
 185 19:39:12 <GregNoel>	OK, 2128 1.0 David, 2129 anytime
 186 19:39:13 <sgk_>	the doc might be right (the *CPP* variables *should* be in the command line)
 187 19:39:16 <sgk_>	and the code needs fixing
 188 19:39:22 <garyo-home>	aha, I see.
 189 19:39:57 <GregNoel>	David either way.
 190 19:40:00 <garyo-home>	We would need David to answer that.
 191 19:40:07 *	stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 192 19:40:14 <garyo-home>	there goes Steven.
 193 19:40:18 <sgk_>	right, done 2128: david, 1.0, with a note about the doc-vs.-code
 194 19:40:20 <GregNoel>	Ah, we just lost Steven...
 195 19:40:25 <sgk_>	hey , where'd i go?
 196 19:40:39 <GregNoel>	vanished in to the AEther...
 197 19:40:46 <garyo-home>	hm, my irc client said your connection timed out.
 198 19:40:41 <sgk_>	(that was the connection through the other bus timing out)
 199 19:41:04 <garyo-home>	I see.
 200 19:41:17 <sgk_>	okay, 2129:  anyone, anytime
 201 19:41:28 <sgk_>	2130:
 202 19:41:50 <garyo-home>	2130, doc license issues: can we satisfy them somehow, maybe a CC license of some kind?
 203 19:42:03 <GregNoel>	Have you figured out what he really wants?
 204 19:42:06 <garyo-home>	That would let you still print the UG?
 205 19:42:17 <sgk_>	CC license would be the right thing, i suppose
 206 19:42:30 <sgk_>	this is probably a research, me to figure out how where to draw the line
 207 19:42:38 <GregNoel>	OK, works for me
 208 19:42:44 <sgk_>	yeah, they want to make the UG available on (e.g.) Debian
 209 19:43:01 <sgk_>	but it's copyright me, not the SCons Foundation, and it's unclear if they can legallly do it
 210 19:43:03 <GregNoel>	although getting it into 1.0 would be good
 211 19:43:09 <sgk_>	i'll sort it out
 212 19:43:14 <GregNoel>	OK, works for me
 213 19:43:20 <garyo-home>	ok
 214 19:43:28 <sgk_>	just changed it to research (Greg's research)
 215 19:43:48 <GregNoel>	Ah, really?
 216 19:44:04 <sgk_>	well, i won't promise, but I do conceptually agree with it
 217 19:44:26 <garyo-home>	ok, 2131 (glob needs to sort)?
 218 19:44:28 <GregNoel>	I thought I understood the initial request, but not since.
 219 19:44:31 <sgk_>	in practice, right now i'm prioritizing UG updates over research to get 1.0 out
 220 19:44:59 <sgk_>	2131:  is there any downside to making Glob() return a deterministic order?
 221 19:45:02 <sgk_>	i can't think of one
 222 19:45:18 <GregNoel>	glob.glob doesn't sort; why should Glob?
 223 19:45:21 <garyo-home>	We should definitely sort it.
 224 19:45:31 <sgk_>	principle of least surprise
 225 19:45:34 <garyo-home>	Who would want it in random order?
 226 19:45:45 <bdbaddog>	and you could use --random if you did...
 227 19:45:53 <GregNoel>	"least astonishment"  yes, you're probably right.
 228 19:46:00 <sgk_>	having SCons rebuild things whenever it feels like it because you use Glob() seems really unehlpful
 229 19:46:23 <garyo-home>	right, I think this should be 1.0.x p2.  Easy and helpful.
 230 19:46:33 <bdbaddog>	gotta run. hey can someone look at my comments bug 243. I did some research and seems like a real bug where we thought it was doc bug before.
 231 19:46:53 <GregNoel>	later
 232 19:46:56 <sgk_>	okay, we'll try to look at 243
 233 19:46:57 <sgk_>	later
 234 19:47:03 <garyo-home>	bye
 235 19:47:14 <sgk_>	2131:  1.0.x p2?
 236 19:47:36 <GregNoel>	ok, I guess
 237 19:47:55 <garyo-home>	fine w/ me.
 238 19:48:12 <GregNoel>	2132
 239 19:48:34 <sgk_>	2132:  Ralf's fixes tend to be pretty good
 240 19:48:40 <sgk_>	i haven't lookat the code on this one yet, though
 241 19:48:44 <sgk_>	looked at
 242 19:48:45 <GregNoel>	sgk_, I'm pretty sure it was an earlier issue
 243 19:48:55 <GregNoel>	It uses subprocess
 244 19:49:00 <garyo-home>	Can we use subprocess.Popen()?
 245 19:49:16 <sgk_>	should be able to, the compatibility layer has a subprocess module that works under 1.5.2
 246 19:49:27 <GregNoel>	we hope
 247 19:50:01 <GregNoel>	If we can't find the dup, I move for 1.0.x
 248 19:50:16 <sgk_>	agreed
 249 19:50:22 <sgk_>	1.0.x... p3?
 250 19:50:28 <garyo-home>	That early?  OK I guess since there's a good patch.
 251 19:50:28 <sgk_>	or p2?
 252 19:50:44 <GregNoel>	yes, and if we find the dup, make it the same.
 253 19:50:48 <sgk_>	~5 minutes until i leave the bus
 254 19:51:04 <GregNoel>	and we're not even out of the current issues...
 255 19:51:09 <sgk_>	i'll volunteer to hunt for the dup
 256 19:51:12 <sgk_>	so put my name on it
 257 19:51:16 <GregNoel>	ok, done
 258 19:51:24 <sgk_>	two weeks' worth
 259 19:51:37 <GregNoel>	but only five new ones
 260 19:51:42 <sgk_>	true
 261 19:51:47 <garyo-home>	2133: invalid, or should we try to handle AddPostAction differently (no implicit dep on cmd)?
 262 19:51:53 <sgk_>	2133:  i think this case should work
 263 19:52:01 <sgk_>	it used to, and it doesn't seem unreasonable
 264 19:52:09 <sgk_>	("should be made to work (again)" that is)
 265 19:52:33 <garyo-home>	AddPostAction cmds don't really need to be dependencies anyway, so I agree.
 266 19:52:39 <GregNoel>	sounds like a hack...
 267 19:52:49 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  I think they do
 268 19:52:53 <garyo-home>	No, because AddPostAction is not a builder.
 269 19:53:01 <sgk_>	agree w/gary
 270 19:53:11 <GregNoel>	think of a local command that JFCLs through the binary
 271 19:53:12 <sgk_>	plus it's easier to add an explicit Depends() if you really want that dependency
 272 19:53:18 <garyo-home>	Builder cmds should get auto deps, but not Pre/Post actions.
 273 19:53:20 <sgk_>	than to shut it off
 274 19:53:26 <GregNoel>	the command should be rebuilt if it changes
 275 19:53:52 <sgk_>	hmm, Greg i do see your point -- SCM purity would require it
 276 19:53:53 <garyo-home>	Greg: hm, I have to think about that.
 277 19:54:11 <GregNoel>	we're not going to settle this now; not enough time; resume here next time?
 278 19:54:14 <sgk_>	since you can't know the AddPostAction() is irrelevant
 279 19:54:22 <sgk_>	works for me
 280 19:54:36 <GregNoel>	OK, then, when next?
 281 19:54:38 <garyo-home>	ok.  Same time, same place, next week?
 282 19:54:45 <sgk_>	same time, etc.
 283 19:54:53 <GregNoel>	19h00?  or 17h00?
 284 19:55:02 <garyo-home>	1900 is good for me, how about you?
 285 19:55:07 <sgk_>	19h00 is fine with me
 286 19:55:13 <GregNoel>	fine with me
 287 19:55:16 <garyo-home>	Greg: I'll do the data entry this week from your irc log
 288 19:55:17 <sgk_>	done
 289 19:55:25 <sgk_>	gary:  thanks
 290 19:55:43 <GregNoel>	ok, although I have the time this week
 291 19:55:50 <sgk_>	i'll probably start a release@ thread re: really releasing 1.0
 292 19:56:02 <garyo-home>	sgk_: I was just going to suggest that.
 293 19:56:14 <GregNoel>	good idea
 294 19:56:28 <garyo-home>	Greg: thanks but I think I can handle it, gotta contribute somehow...
 295 19:56:49 <garyo-home>	plus I'll be on vacation 23rd - 6th
 296 19:56:50 <GregNoel>	Personally, I'd rather you were editing the spreadsheets...
 297 19:57:06 <sgk_>	disconnect in < 15 seconds, later
 298 19:57:08 <garyo-home>	OK, I agree.  I'll make some time for that too.
 299 19:57:19 <GregNoel>	ok, later
 300 19:57:24 *	sgk_ has quit ("Leaving")
 301 19:57:25 <garyo-home>	bye guys.
 302 19:57:29 <GregNoel>	cul
 303 19:57:35 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906]")
 304 19:57:37 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 305 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-07-14 (last edited 2008-07-16 03:27:24 by ip68-7-77-81)