1 17:18:02 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
2 18:51:06 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.131) has joined #scons
3 18:51:35 * GregoryNoel is no longer marked as being away
4 18:51:48 <GregoryNoel> Hey, Steven...
5 18:53:59 <stevenknight> hi greg
6 18:54:26 <GregoryNoel> I hope Gary can make it; he sounded dragged out in his note.
7 18:54:30 <stevenknight> on the late shuttle tonight, so i turn into a pumpkin early :-(
8 18:54:36 <stevenknight> agreed re: Gary
9 18:55:22 <stevenknight> he said he'd updated the spreadsheet, but i only see his comments on early issues
10 18:56:05 * GregoryNoel is still pulling up the spreadsheet
11 18:59:22 <GregoryNoel> Ah, Brandon is adding comments. But you're right; I don't see Gary's comments past the initial few.
12 19:00:34 <GregoryNoel> Brandon, are you here for the bug meeting?
13 19:00:46 <GregoryNoel> Or anyone else?
14 19:02:48 <Azverkan> I'm here
15 19:02:52 <Azverkan> was still typing
16 19:03:00 <GregoryNoel> Hey, Brandon...
17 19:03:10 <stevenknight> hi brandon
18 19:03:43 <Azverkan> hey
19 19:04:04 <GregoryNoel> Can you keep going, but split your attention here?
20 19:04:09 <Azverkan> yep
21 19:04:19 <GregoryNoel> OK, shall we proceed?
22 19:04:23 <stevenknight> since we have three + gary's comments, and the clock's ticking, shall we get started then?
23 19:04:26 <stevenknight> yes
24 19:04:35 <stevenknight> 2133:
25 19:05:01 <stevenknight> the more that i think about it, i'm on the fence like gary
26 19:05:44 <GregoryNoel> I think I'd move from INVALID to WONTFIX, but I still think it's not a bug
27 19:05:44 <stevenknight> but it's still pretty common and not unreasonable usage
28 19:06:00 <GregoryNoel> Really? What's the use case?
29 19:06:16 <stevenknight> hmm, well maybe not *common* per se
30 19:06:21 <stevenknight> just surprising
31 19:06:38 <stevenknight> you want to run a post-processing script after building the target
32 19:06:48 <stevenknight> the post-processing script is built locally in your tree
33 19:07:09 <stevenknight> you AddPostAction() the script and expect that SCons will make sure it's built before it tries to execute it
34 19:07:16 <stevenknight> like it does with the regular Actions
35 19:07:39 <GregoryNoel> Yeah, but the next run, the post-processing doesn't get done since the command is already built.
36 19:07:36 <stevenknight> i guess it comes down to whether or not people should think an Action is an Action is an Action
37 19:07:54 <stevenknight> regardless of whether a Builder or AddPostAction associates it with the target
38 19:08:21 <GregoryNoel> I think it's bad design, for sure
39 19:08:32 <stevenknight> AddPostAction() in general? I agree
40 19:08:44 <GregoryNoel> No, this use case, running a command as part of its own build.
41 19:08:50 <stevenknight> ah
42 19:09:04 <GregoryNoel> I just don't see any real reason to run the command just after building it and no other time.
43 19:09:05 <Azverkan> Feels more like a side effect of how builders are implemented that being a required feature to me
44 19:09:47 <stevenknight> I don't know, i do see people using it for things like unit test executables
45 19:10:03 <Azverkan> You have two types of these post actions, some that you want to always run and some that you only want to run after the executable changes
46 19:10:09 <GregoryNoel> For unit tests, you can use a synthetic target
47 19:10:12 <stevenknight> but you can argue that's just because we do a lousy job with tests right now
48 19:10:27 <Azverkan> and in both cases they may or may not have real targets, but fake targets like the windows registry getting updated etc...
49 19:10:37 * stevenknight agrees with Azverkan
50 19:10:47 <Azverkan> I think the real fix is to make Alias() more interchangeable with File()
51 19:11:03 <GregoryNoel> yes
52 19:11:05 <stevenknight> yes yes yes
53 19:11:07 <Azverkan> there are some cases where you have to make a File() that does not exist to work around limitations in Alias()
54 19:11:21 <GregoryNoel> yes
55 19:11:41 <stevenknight> okay, i can see WONTFIXing this in favor of a more comprehensive solution involving being able to use Alias
56 19:11:48 <stevenknight> as both a source and a real Dependency
57 19:11:53 <GregoryNoel> I'll go for that.
58 19:12:04 <stevenknight> like Brandon said
59 19:12:16 <stevenknight> okay, done
60 19:13:00 <stevenknight> I'll open a new one to track the Alias-wherever-you-can-use-File enhancement
61 19:12:51 <GregoryNoel> 2134
62 19:13:03 <stevenknight> 2134:
63 19:13:45 <stevenknight> Greg, did you have a particular 2.x feature in mind to make this easier?
64 19:13:46 <GregoryNoel> 2133 spinoff: "Synthetic Targets"
65 19:13:55 <stevenknight> oh, wait, just saw it in your comment
66 19:13:57 <GregoryNoel> 'attribute'
67 19:14:30 <stevenknight> gotta transfer buses, expect short disconnect
68 19:14:40 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
69 19:16:35 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@69.36.227.135) has joined #scons
70 19:16:41 <GregoryNoel> I just don't know if it's worth trying to implement in the 1.x timeframe if we're just going to reengineer it in 2.x, especially since 1.x is already getting so full.
71 19:16:47 <stevenknight> and we're back...
72 19:17:11 <stevenknight> yeah, 1.x is definitely full
73 19:17:19 <stevenknight> no one's beating down the doors for this
74 19:17:25 <stevenknight> let's go ahead and push it out to 2.x
75 19:17:30 <stevenknight> (assume we're still on 2134)
76 19:17:37 <GregoryNoel> works for me (yes)
77 19:17:57 <stevenknight> okay, 2134, 2.x, p3 (?)
78 19:18:10 <GregoryNoel> yes, issues@scons
79 19:18:25 <stevenknight> 2135: consensus 1.0.x p2
80 19:18:34 <GregoryNoel> done
81 19:18:41 <stevenknight> 2136: consensus 1.x p2
82 19:18:46 <GregoryNoel> done
83 19:19:00 <stevenknight> 2137: consensus 1.0 p3
84 19:19:08 <GregoryNoel> yes, but who?
85 19:19:49 <stevenknight> guess it partly depends on how soon we push out 1.0
86 19:20:12 <GregoryNoel> I think it should be within a week; it's aged enough.
87 19:20:12 <stevenknight> i'll take it, unless you have any text you've already started
88 19:20:22 <stevenknight> agree re: aged enough
89 19:20:31 <GregoryNoel> no, in fact, I think I'm too close to it
90 19:20:27 <stevenknight> 2137: 1.0 p3 stevenknight
91 19:20:38 <GregoryNoel> done
92 19:21:01 <GregoryNoel> 2138
93 19:21:12 <stevenknight> 2138: consensus 1.0.x p2
94 19:21:13 <stevenknight> me
95 19:21:22 <GregoryNoel> ok, works
96 19:21:39 <stevenknight> 2140: changed my mind, 2.x p4
97 19:21:50 <stevenknight> move it up if someone actually comes up with a good interface for it
98 19:21:58 <stevenknight> (the underlying hook, i mean)
99 19:22:10 <GregoryNoel> okay
100 19:22:37 <stevenknight> 2141: 1.0.x p2, me
101 19:22:40 <GregoryNoel> 2141, consensus
102 19:22:47 <Azverkan> 2140: I'd think that the hook would probably be driven more by distributed build requirements like IncrediBuild than the actual submitted bug
103 19:23:18 <stevenknight> 2140: agree that that's a more compelling reason than this particular use case
104 19:23:37 <stevenknight> but someone still has to care enough to pony up the code
105 19:24:05 * Azverkan is at the moment I'm worried about the GIL not getting fixed in Py3k
106 19:24:10 <stevenknight> 2142: consensus dup
107 19:24:35 <GregoryNoel> 2142, I added a comment to 2132 asking that he takes makes sure it uses env[ENV]
108 19:24:29 <stevenknight> 2143: consensus 1.x p2 david
109 19:24:46 <GregoryNoel> 2143, done
110 19:24:47 <stevenknight> cool, thanks
111 19:24:52 <stevenknight> (re: 2142)
112 19:25:36 <stevenknight> 2144: Brandon, can you say more about the Windows API issue at work here
113 19:26:01 <Azverkan> It's probably more complicated than we want to spend on it
114 19:26:01 <GregoryNoel> 2144, I agree with Steven's comment, but we should ask Benoit about it.
115 19:26:16 <Azverkan> But basically Ctrl-C event and job trees is the root of the issue
116 19:26:31 <stevenknight> on the discussion or on actually fixing it (or working around it) in SCons?
117 19:26:32 <Azverkan> Unix sends signals to subprocesses differently than windows does
118 19:26:39 <GregoryNoel> Is the original issue from Windoze?
119 19:26:46 <stevenknight> yes, IIRC
120 19:26:58 <Azverkan> yeah
121 19:27:16 <Azverkan> it gets even nastier if you have a scons running inside a scons running inside a scons or something like that
122 19:27:16 <GregoryNoel> Then it looks like Brandon is volunteering.... {;-}
123 19:27:33 <Azverkan> I dont think it's something we can ever fix on the command line without an IPC layer
124 19:28:11 <Azverkan> but the named event hack I did in the past worked well enough that I could submit a patch
125 19:28:05 <stevenknight> basically something else wraps and just handles the interrupt
126 19:28:16 <stevenknight> and passes word in a controlled way to the back-end SCons process?
127 19:28:50 <Azverkan> in my case we just modified the gui to send the named event instead of the Ctrl-C or the Ctrl-Break which both have bugs (and different kinds)
128 19:29:04 <Azverkan> Ctrl-C corrupts scons and Ctrl-Break corrupts subtools
129 19:29:16 <GregoryNoel> Ah, Windo$e...
130 19:29:39 <stevenknight> and i assume the wrapper that handles the Ctrl-{C,Break} needs to be a separate task, not just a thread?
131 19:29:50 <Azverkan> yes and scons cannot be a child of that task
132 19:30:00 <Azverkan> so you have to spawn a task parented by the parent of scons
133 19:30:12 <stevenknight> what fun!
134 19:30:19 <Azverkan> detach the console from scons and reattach the console to that
135 19:30:27 <Azverkan> its probably not really worth the effort
136 19:30:32 * GregoryNoel wonders about Steven's idea of fun
137 19:30:48 <Azverkan> I'd put it off until we think about releasing 2.x
138 19:31:02 <GregoryNoel> Future? Or wontfix?
139 19:31:11 <stevenknight> future
140 19:31:17 <Azverkan> future because you will get new bugs otherwise
141 19:31:21 <Azverkan> over and over
142 19:31:31 <stevenknight> Brandon, could you add a write up describing the above so it gets captured?
143 19:31:32 <GregoryNoel> ok, what priority then?
144 19:31:39 <Azverkan> yeah
145 19:31:44 <stevenknight> thanks
146 19:31:46 <stevenknight> i'd say p2
147 19:31:56 <stevenknight> agree it sounds like a lot of effort
148 19:32:06 <stevenknight> but it goes to the heart of the "correct build" priority
149 19:32:07 <GregoryNoel> ... I was thinking p3 but I'll go with p2
150 19:32:17 <GregoryNoel> ah, good point
151 19:32:25 <stevenknight> okay, 2144, future, p2
152 19:32:29 <GregoryNoel> done
153 19:32:48 <stevenknight> 2145: research, me
154 19:33:13 <GregoryNoel> ok, done
155 19:33:29 <stevenknight> 2146: anytime
156 19:33:36 <stevenknight> me if no one else volunteers
157 19:33:44 <GregoryNoel> done
158 19:33:59 <GregoryNoel> I think you're the only one who understands it
159 19:33:52 <stevenknight> re: 2146
160 19:34:45 <stevenknight> if we scrap the surrogate stuff, what about generatiing the output with scripts modeled after the test/*.py infrastructure?
161 19:35:12 <GregoryNoel> say more?
162 19:35:52 <stevenknight> all of the in-line <scons_example> things
163 19:36:18 <stevenknight> get turned into a separate self-contained script based on the same API that the test/*.py tests use
164 19:36:41 <stevenknight> generating the example output becomes a matter of running some script like runtest.py
165 19:36:51 <stevenknight> that captures the output at the right step
166 19:37:32 <GregoryNoel> I'm not sure... It still seems awkward. Maybe you should start a thread on the dev list.
167 19:37:43 <stevenknight> your ideas about making it a more integrated part of the packaging build are on target regardless of this internal implementation detail
168 19:37:56 <stevenknight> okay, i can do that
169 19:38:10 <GregoryNoel> ok, I'll look for your message
170 19:38:22 <stevenknight> shall we try to make some progress on 2006H2?
171 19:38:29 <GregoryNoel> How about that? We finished the current issues!
172 19:38:39 * stevenknight rejoices
173 19:38:36 <GregoryNoel> Yes, onward
174 19:38:46 <GregoryNoel> only a few of those left now...
175 19:39:13 <stevenknight> cool
176 19:39:23 <stevenknight> net lag pulling up the spreadsheet...
177 19:39:25 <stevenknight> there we go
178 19:39:35 <bdbaddog> :)
179 19:39:36 <stevenknight> where did we leave off?
180 19:39:42 <GregoryNoel> 1437 is first
181 19:39:55 <stevenknight> 1437: consensus dup
182 19:39:57 <stevenknight> hey bill
183 19:40:23 <bdbaddog> Good evening. Gotta run in a few,but here for a few.
184 19:40:36 <stevenknight> cool, thanks
185 19:40:39 <GregoryNoel> Hey, Bill
186 19:40:42 <bdbaddog> timely 1437 is related to email thread Greg and I have been sharing.
187 19:40:49 <stevenknight> on 2006H2
188 19:40:49 <stevenknight> 1438: i
189 19:40:50 <GregoryNoel> yep
190 19:40:55 <stevenknight> try again
191 19:41:10 <stevenknight> 1438: I'm coming around to Bill's suggestion of 2.x and redoing this
192 19:42:09 <stevenknight> I'm starting to think I can kill off VariantDir by making the repository support more flexible
193 19:42:20 <stevenknight> let you really stack directories arbitrarily
194 19:42:33 <GregoryNoel> I tried to go there once; you shot me down.
195 19:42:45 <stevenknight> yep, i was wrong
196 19:42:51 <bdbaddog> sounds like it would support very complicated schemes, but would it be easy to to the simple case?
197 19:43:33 <stevenknight> i think so
198 19:43:49 <bdbaddog> worth a wiki page to discuss ?
199 19:43:54 <bdbaddog> and/or email thread.
200 19:43:57 <GregoryNoel> I'd certainly like to see a proposal
201 19:44:00 <stevenknight> sounds like it
202 19:44:16 <Azverkan> I'm also of the opinion that the current approach needs to replaced and since that would potentially require scripts to be updated it would have to be a 2.x feature
203 19:44:17 <stevenknight> probably research, p3, me then
204 19:44:30 <bdbaddog> ok guys. gotta run. sorry to be a short timer tonight.
205 19:44:37 <GregoryNoel> your research? That's 'anytime'
206 19:44:48 <stevenknight> :-)
207 19:45:21 <GregoryNoel> I'm not kidding; I plan to manipulate the ordering so 'anytime' always sorts just after the current release.
208 19:45:35 <GregoryNoel> Er, the next immediate release.
209 19:45:47 <stevenknight> right, but i'm actually somewhat serious too
210 19:46:02 <stevenknight> i've adopted your terminology and agree that "research" should be higher priority
211 19:46:10 <stevenknight> for reclassification
212 19:46:18 <stevenknight> even if i'm not consistent about doing that
213 19:46:37 <GregoryNoel> Hmmm, ok, then which do you mean?
214 19:46:41 <stevenknight> so i'd rather see this as "research" so the proposal has at least a shot at getting written up sooner rather than later
215 19:46:53 <GregoryNoel> I'll go for that
216 19:46:56 <stevenknight> if only because I have it staring at me reminding me i haven't done it yet...
217 19:47:08 <GregoryNoel> {;-}
218 19:47:18 <stevenknight> okay, 1438: research, sk
219 19:47:22 <GregoryNoel> done
220 19:47:42 <GregoryNoel> 1439, toolchain
221 19:47:49 <stevenknight> done
222 19:47:55 <stevenknight> (I could go with you on invalid, too)
223 19:48:19 <stevenknight> 1442: toolchain / dup 1437
224 19:48:23 <stevenknight> ?
225 19:48:36 <GregoryNoel> yes, invalid, I was thinking of another issue
226 19:49:19 <stevenknight> okay, just to be clear: 1439: invalid ?
227 19:49:23 <Azverkan> not convinced that 1439 is invalid
228 19:49:32 <GregoryNoel> 1439, yes
229 19:49:38 <Azverkan> but a decision that the project sure either make for or against
230 19:50:00 <Azverkan> seems like the current approach is that it is not supported
231 19:50:52 <GregoryNoel> uh, wait, 1439 has been already taken care of
232 19:51:11 <Azverkan> yeah there is like 10 in a row I think
233 19:51:14 <stevenknight> whoa, hang on, i already have a comment on here from July 1 saying this was getting closed
234 19:51:46 <stevenknight> but it looks like I didn't change the status
235 19:52:06 <GregoryNoel> Yes, it's marked invalid; it's still just in the spreadsheet.
236 19:52:06 <stevenknight> yeah, we've been through a bunch of these already
237 19:52:23 <stevenknight> ah, we only have 7 left from 2006H2
238 19:52:25 <GregoryNoel> next is 1490
239 19:52:48 <stevenknight> damn, i'm down to the last minute
240 19:52:55 <stevenknight> same time next week?
241 19:53:00 <stevenknight> we obviously won't have gary
242 19:53:15 <stevenknight> brandon, is this time good for you -- it's really helpful to have you here
243 19:53:48 <Azverkan> the earliest I get home by is 7:00PM west coast
244 19:54:24 <Azverkan> the time we have now is best for me so far
245 19:54:34 <stevenknight> okay, sounds good
246 19:54:35 <GregoryNoel> You can certainly join a little late, but would some other time be better?
247 19:55:02 <Azverkan> my work hours are more or less demand driven
248 19:55:07 <stevenknight> if so, say the word
249 19:55:13 <Azverkan> not really
250 19:55:20 <stevenknight> i'll assume same time (19h00 PDT) next week unless i hear otherwise
251 19:55:27 <Azverkan> I'm other completely busy or free by 1900
252 19:55:35 <GregoryNoel> OK, then we demand that you're here next time {;-}
253 19:55:30 <stevenknight> ....and i'm at my stop
254 19:55:32 <stevenknight> later...
255 19:55:35 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
256 19:56:19 <GregoryNoel> I've got to go, too; le Tour de France calls...
257 19:56:25 <GregoryNoel> cul
258 19:56:34 * GregoryNoel has been marked as being away
259 21:55:33 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has left #scons
260
