1 17:27:40 * garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
2 18:58:18 <garyo-home> Hi folks; who's here so far?
3 19:00:12 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@c-98-234-62-147.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
4 19:00:27 <stevenknight> hello again
5 19:00:39 <garyo-home> Hi Steven.
6 19:02:16 <stevenknight> do we have a quorum?
7 19:02:25 <garyo-home> Just me and you so far I think.
8 19:02:31 <stevenknight> fair enough
9 19:02:52 <garyo-home> We can look at the ParseConfig one. Good patience with that one!
10 19:03:01 <garyo-home> (1500)
11 19:04:56 <stevenknight> thnx
12 19:05:26 <garyo-home> Cygwin actually does the same thing.
13 19:05:27 <stevenknight> greg's got a point re: translating paths that come from anywhere outside, not just ParseConfig
14 19:05:29 * Greg_Noel is no longer marked as being away
15 19:05:31 <Greg_Noel> Hey, it's after 19h00; I'm late
16 19:05:41 <garyo-home> Hi Greg.
17 19:05:44 <stevenknight> so it is... :-)
18 19:06:01 <garyo-home> We're just looking at 1500 (ParseConfig and msys)
19 19:06:30 <garyo-home> If the mapping can always be done backwards, we could just have a .msys_path like .win32_path.
20 19:06:43 <Greg_Noel> OK, I'm there.
21 19:06:47 <stevenknight> no, that's the reverse of what he wants
22 19:06:55 <stevenknight> this is on input, not output
23 19:07:24 <stevenknight> i agree that a .msys path might be useful, but that's orthogonal
24 19:07:45 <stevenknight> right now i'm leaning towards 2.0
25 19:07:45 <garyo-home> Maybe not though. On msys, shouldn't gcc be called with all msys paths?
26 19:07:49 <Greg_Noel> If I understand what Steven wrote, it should be done when the name is looked up (i.e., in Entry())
27 19:08:16 <stevenknight> i think Greg's right in larger sense
28 19:08:26 <stevenknight> but i'm more nervous about unintended side effects there
29 19:08:42 <stevenknight> for now, i think we mark it 2.0 p3
30 19:08:46 <garyo-home> Yes, you need to translate msys -> win32, but maybe also win32 -> msys.
31 19:08:52 <Greg_Noel> I'll go with that.
32 19:08:54 <stevenknight> and the implementation can be hashed out by whoever gets stuck with it
33 19:08:57 <garyo-home> But anyway I agree w/ 2.0 p3 unknown person.
34 19:09:06 <stevenknight> garyo, you might be right re: needing to pass msys paths to some tools
35 19:09:19 <stevenknight> done
36 19:09:26 <stevenknight> 1500: 2.0 p3 draft_choice_to_be_named_later
37 19:09:42 <garyo-home> 2176 consensus 1.0.x p2 ludwig?
38 19:09:42 <Greg_Noel> Ludwig
39 19:09:43 <stevenknight> cool
40 19:09:48 <Greg_Noel> He's said he plans to hang around
41 19:10:12 <stevenknight> 2176 done
42 19:10:17 <Greg_Noel> 2177: Don't get me wrong; I think it should be applied ASAP. It's just that niggling little thing about the policy. Steve's point about the policy evolving is a good one, and I have to admit that the rebuild would be for a pretty rare corner case, so I'm not going to argue for 2.0 very hard (i.e., not really at all). And let's not forget that it gives the user a very cool way of seeing what SCons thinks is in the directory. I do worry about it not being sorted; I think the test harness has sorting turned on and I don't know if it's on normally.
43 19:11:02 <garyo-home> Sorting is vital. Exceptions are OK as long as they're properly documented, IMHO.
44 19:11:17 <garyo-home> (Exceptions... to the no-rebuild policy)
45 19:11:26 <stevenknight> agree re: sorting
46 19:11:52 <stevenknight> and re: exceptions
47 19:12:04 <stevenknight> my only hesitation is that it does start down the slippery slope
48 19:12:07 <Greg_Noel> I think we need to apply the patch and then try it out under some not-test conditions to see if the names are sorted.
49 19:12:09 <garyo-home> If no-rebuild were really a showstopper for someone we could show them how to turn it off.
50 19:12:22 <garyo-home> turn this feature off.
51 19:12:27 <stevenknight> right
52 19:12:48 <stevenknight> but turn it off by making the sorting configurable? or by showing them how to modify that spot in the code?
53 19:12:55 <stevenknight> making it configurable complicates applying the patch a little...
54 19:13:15 <garyo-home> IMHO: modify the code. I think nobody will complain and we won't have to do it. Configurability would be a waste.
55 19:13:20 <Greg_Noel> No, only sort when calculating the contents, not when using the children.
56 19:14:09 <stevenknight> hmm, i think we've had this discussion re: directory sorting before
57 19:14:10 <Greg_Noel> I agree with Gary FOR THIS CASE.
58 19:14:42 <Greg_Noel> It's only significant for directories
59 19:15:07 <Greg_Noel> the order of the children doesn't matter
60 19:15:05 <garyo-home> I'm not worried about slippery slope; as long as we try hard not to cause rebuilds, then most releases won't (because of the policy). If we end up with too many of those, we batch them up.
61 19:15:25 <stevenknight> garyo: agreed
62 19:15:39 <garyo-home> greg: right, like the order of children of an Alias doesn't matter. Just the sig. I agree.
63 19:15:49 <stevenknight> okay, i'm with you guys
64 19:15:58 <garyo-home> OK, sounds like we're all on board for 1.0.x p2(or p1)
65 19:16:06 <stevenknight> 2177: 1.0.x p[12] anyone
66 19:16:17 <Greg_Noel> p2, p1 is for emergencies
67 19:16:24 <stevenknight> suppose we ought to make "anyone" more specific....
68 19:16:25 <Greg_Noel> Ludwig
69 19:16:40 <garyo-home> either will get done (p1 or p2), I say p2.
70 19:16:41 <stevenknight> Ludwig++
71 19:16:46 <garyo-home> fine.
72 19:16:49 <stevenknight> 1.0.x p2 Ludwig
73 19:16:49 <Greg_Noel> done
74 19:16:50 <stevenknight> done
75 19:16:54 <stevenknight> 2178:
76 19:17:05 <Greg_Noel> consensus
77 19:17:17 <garyo-home> sure. p3, split the difference?
78 19:17:24 <stevenknight> 2.0 p3 Ludwig
79 19:17:25 <stevenknight> done
80 19:17:31 <stevenknight> 2179:
81 19:17:35 <Greg_Noel> Will the 2.3 floor be in 1.0.1?
82 19:17:43 <garyo-home> whole rest of the page is consensus.
83 19:17:50 <stevenknight> cool
84 19:17:51 <stevenknight> go us
85 19:18:02 <garyo-home> Greg: I didn't think so...
86 19:18:08 <stevenknight> no, updating floor is what 2.0 is about
87 19:18:19 <Greg_Noel> warning
88 19:18:26 <garyo-home> But we could start warning maybe?
89 19:18:35 <stevenknight> we're already warning
90 19:18:37 <Greg_Noel> er, will the 2.3 warning be in 1.0.1?
91 19:18:48 <stevenknight> if we've settled on 2.3
92 19:18:49 <Greg_Noel> but for 2.2
93 19:19:12 <stevenknight> i haven't yet been compelled that 2.3 gives us that much more than 2.2
94 19:19:14 <garyo-home> I'm staying out of this one this time.
95 19:19:30 <stevenknight> so far it's the tarfile module and a couple of Ludwig's patches
96 19:19:36 <stevenknight> am i overlooking anything?
97 19:19:48 <garyo-home> tarfile is not insignificant though.
98 19:19:59 <stevenknight> true
99 19:20:07 <Greg_Noel> Well, it seems to be the floor for a lot of other Python-based projects; go with the flow
100 19:20:25 <stevenknight> why start now? :-)
101 19:20:32 <Greg_Noel> point
102 19:20:48 <bdbaddog> I vote for 2.3
103 19:20:51 <bdbaddog> :)
104 19:20:57 <Greg_Noel> Hi, Bill
105 19:21:00 <stevenknight> i'm not balking at tarfile per se
106 19:21:01 <garyo-home> Google says 19000 hits for "oldest supported python version 2.2" but 96,000 for "... 2.3". :-)
107 19:21:16 <stevenknight> it's the idea that we're going to let what other modules do/don't use decide for us
108 19:21:35 <stevenknight> instead of making the decision based on the actual underlying features supported
109 19:21:40 <stevenknight> (or by real user data, which we don't have)
110 19:22:22 <stevenknight> and for "oldest supported python version 1.5." one hit? us?
111 19:22:26 <bdbaddog> I still haven't gotten any responses in the couple of emails I floated to the user mailing list indicating that they were unable to move forward to any particular version of python for use by the build tools.
112 19:22:30 <stevenknight> :-)
113 19:22:37 <Greg_Noel> The problem is that it's a decision based on positioning from next year; all we can do is guess.
114 19:22:58 <Greg_Noel> I just think 2.3 will be a better floor by then.
115 19:23:37 <stevenknight> well, shall we open up the "2.0 time frame" can of worms too, then?
116 19:23:52 <bdbaddog> even if it was today. I think 2.3 is a good floor. what distros do you exclude? Also take into account that any projects (opensource) which will use scons to build themselves will only be released with newer versions of current distros.
117 19:23:56 <stevenknight> greg, I know you have it in mind for ~6 months from now, right?
118 19:23:58 <Greg_Noel> No, let's drop it. I was just curious.
119 19:24:22 <Greg_Noel> 2.0 in six months? About right.
120 19:24:30 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: RHEL3 I think has 2.2. But that was 2003 or earlier.
121 19:25:10 <bdbaddog> yup, and as I said, no projects which are on rhel3 will be updated, so requiring newer python won't be barier to distro builders.
122 19:25:24 <Greg_Noel> Figure one month for 1.0.1 and another for 1.0.2; two months for 1.1; two more for 2.0
123 19:25:39 <garyo-home> at a bare minimum!
124 19:26:03 <Greg_Noel> yeah, that's pushing it, all right, but it's what you've said you want to do.
125 19:25:56 <bdbaddog> you see 2.0 as a linear progression from 1.1 ?
126 19:26:18 <garyo-home> me?
127 19:26:20 <Greg_Noel> How couldn't it be?
128 19:26:33 <Greg_Noel> you == you guys
129 19:26:46 <bdbaddog> (you = greg noel)
130 19:26:49 <bdbaddog> sorry bout that.
131 19:27:21 <garyo-home> greg: I think it's aggressive, but let's see what our newly expanded team can get done.
132 19:27:37 <Greg_Noel> No, I originally figured a year for 1.x cycles; you guys have wanted it faster.
133 19:27:22 <bdbaddog> I see 2.0 branched from 1.0, work removing 1.5.2 limitations started, in parallel 1.0.1 and 1.1 getting merged to 2.0. 2.0 in a few months.
134 19:28:10 <Greg_Noel> bdbaddog, ain't gonna happen; not enough resources to work two branches.
135 19:28:16 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: +1 on branching for 2.0 soonish. But not too soon because of possible merge headaches.
136 19:28:19 <stevenknight> but a year based on...? a specific set of features that merit 2.0? fixing "all" of the 1.x issues?
137 19:29:00 <Greg_Noel> There are too many issues in 1.x now; fixing all of them would take two years.
138 19:29:10 <garyo-home> let's focus on some bugs now. I don't think we can decide 2.0 release date tonight.
139 19:29:11 <stevenknight> agreed
140 19:29:16 <stevenknight> but
141 19:29:20 <stevenknight> okay, garyo's right
142 19:29:24 <stevenknight> take this to the ML
143 19:29:28 <Greg_Noel> works
144 19:29:29 <bdbaddog> :)
145 19:29:45 <stevenknight> where were we?
146 19:29:52 <garyo-home> The 2006h1 sheet
147 19:30:01 <bdbaddog> should I float another can you move to 2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5 python for a new release mail?
148 19:30:06 <Greg_Noel> 1377
149 19:30:12 <Greg_Noel> oops, 1388
150 19:30:19 <stevenknight> bdbaddog: hold off, don't think we'll get much better info than last time
151 19:30:21 <garyo-home> bdbaddog: can only help to get us some real user info.
152 19:30:38 <garyo-home> I defer to steven.
153 19:31:06 <garyo-home> Greg: is there a Poll module for moinmoin?
154 19:31:22 <Greg_Noel> Um, not sure; I think there's something
155 19:31:48 <stevenknight> doesn't it RSS feed? I think i've seen Google Reader offer to let me subscribe
156 19:32:00 <garyo-home> anyway, 1388 should be 2.0 unless it's a special case that can be addressed earlier.
157 19:32:03 <stevenknight> or maybe that's GR polling...
158 19:32:16 <garyo-home> stevenknight: sorry, I meant a way to take a user poll with questions and a graph of results.
159 19:32:17 <stevenknight> yes, 2.0
160 19:32:18 <stevenknight> p2
161 19:32:25 <stevenknight> ah
162 19:32:38 <stevenknight> i don't know what I was thinking, Unicode getting "solved" in 1.x...
163 19:32:42 <Greg_Noel> 1388 needs to know what the system encoding is; that's a function in 2.3
164 19:32:47 <stevenknight> 1388: 2.0 p2 hero
165 19:32:53 <garyo-home> ok, 1388 2.0 p2 someone.
166 19:32:56 <Greg_Noel> done {;-}
167 19:33:13 <garyo-home> 1392: Greg, look again?
168 19:33:25 <stevenknight> 1392: 1.x p3 me
169 19:33:40 <Greg_Noel> garyo-home, look at what?
170 19:33:43 <garyo-home> (oh, you already did.)
171 19:34:00 <Greg_Noel> done
172 19:34:01 <garyo-home> never mind. I think you had an out-of-place line in the ssheet or something. Or maybe it was me.
173 19:34:19 <Greg_Noel> I moved it just before we started.
174 19:34:34 <garyo-home> 1399 closed, 1409?
175 19:34:38 <garyo-home> Sorry, 1402
176 19:35:05 <garyo-home> Steven: I'd really like the vstudio stuff. There's some work already done. Should it wait for 1.x?
177 19:35:15 <garyo-home> (vsvars.bat etc.)
178 19:35:46 <stevenknight> garyo-home: pretty sure it won't be ready in the 1.0.x time frame
179 19:35:56 <stevenknight> unless you're referring to specific issues with patches that could integrated early
180 19:36:01 <garyo-home> ok, 1.x then. It makes more sense there anyway.
181 19:36:19 <stevenknight> 1402: 1.x p2 me?
182 19:36:22 <garyo-home> No, I mean ripping out all the registry junk and just parsing the output of vs/vcvars.bat.
183 19:36:31 <Greg_Noel> all the VisualStudio stuff is 'anytime'
184 19:36:32 <garyo-home> 1402: 1.x p2 steven.
185 19:36:36 <stevenknight> that would be a god intermediate step
186 19:36:55 <stevenknight> good
187 19:36:59 <stevenknight> 1406:
188 19:37:22 <garyo-home> I don't like the submitted patch.
189 19:37:28 <garyo-home> Too specialized.
190 19:37:48 <stevenknight> agreed
191 19:37:54 <garyo-home> Has anyone retried it recently to see if it's still broken?
192 19:37:58 <stevenknight> research jim
193 19:38:03 <garyo-home> OK.
194 19:38:05 <Greg_Noel> done
195 19:38:10 <stevenknight> 1417:
196 19:38:31 <stevenknight> research me VisualStudio keyword
197 19:38:37 <Greg_Noel> anytime, stevenknight, VisualStudio
198 19:38:45 <Greg_Noel> all the VisualStudio stuff is 'anytime'
199 19:39:04 <Greg_Noel> meaning not tied to a release schedule
200 19:39:00 <stevenknight> done
201 19:39:06 <stevenknight> 1418: research david
202 19:39:15 <stevenknight> Greg_Noel: right
203 19:39:19 <garyo-home> That's not 100% right, the actual problem is you can't use $SOURCES.(any-attr) if your source list may be empty.
204 19:39:20 <Greg_Noel> done
205 19:39:28 <garyo-home> Sorry I'm still on 1417 here.
206 19:39:55 <garyo-home> I'm OK w/ 1418 research david though.
207 19:40:36 <Greg_Noel> 1417: garyo-home, is that true?
208 19:41:17 <garyo-home> Sure, because it expands to an empty list (None) which has no .windows attribute.
209 19:41:35 <Greg_Noel> Not empty list []?
210 19:41:52 <stevenknight> ouch, that fact eluded me. that's bad
211 19:41:53 <garyo-home> [].windows wouldn't work either.
212 19:42:01 <Greg_Noel> That could be an easy fix, if that's all that's wrong.
213 19:42:17 <garyo-home> Expand to something other than None or emptylist?
214 19:42:27 <Greg_Noel> Doesn't it iterate over the list, applying the attribute?
215 19:42:53 <garyo-home> Don't know. Steven?
216 19:42:56 <stevenknight> it should
217 19:43:08 <stevenknight> they're supposed to be a list like object that does that
218 19:43:15 <stevenknight> but i could see that the expansion order might be wrong
219 19:43:28 <Greg_Noel> research, stevenknight?
220 19:43:28 <stevenknight> and it might "efficiently" return an actual list, not the object
221 19:43:46 <stevenknight> at some point where it then tries to apply the attribute too late
222 19:43:49 <stevenknight> yes, research stevenknight
223 19:43:53 <garyo-home> ok
224 19:43:55 <Greg_Noel> done
225 19:44:03 <Greg_Noel> That endeth this list...
226 19:44:10 <garyo-home> nice!
227 19:44:11 <stevenknight> garyo: good catch
228 19:44:14 <garyo-home> thx
229 19:44:21 <stevenknight> all right, done with 2006
230 19:44:36 <Greg_Noel> garyo++
231 19:44:50 <stevenknight> everyone have time to wade into the 1.{0.x,x} re-triaging?
232 19:44:54 <bdbaddog> gotta run.
233 19:44:58 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-3-114.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has left #scons
234 19:44:59 <garyo-home> Sure, a bit.
235 19:45:10 <Greg_Noel> 'nite, Bill
236 19:45:31 <Greg_Noel> I have all night, until my wife wants to watch Olympics again...
237 19:47:48 <Greg_Noel> Gary, Steven and I seem to be in agreement for most of the 1.0 retriage issues; if you concur, we're done.
238 19:47:54 <stevenknight> greg+gary: looks like a lot of consensus in the 1.0.x retriage
239 19:47:57 <stevenknight> done
240 19:48:04 <garyo-home> What do we need for 2071: do we make up our own or use an existing one? I have an old emacs release I signed for FSF we could use.
241 19:48:17 <garyo-home> From my quick look, I don't disagree w/ any of them.
242 19:48:44 <stevenknight> 2071: there's an existing SCons release that assigns ownership to SCons Foundation
243 19:48:51 <stevenknight> two versions, one for employer, one for employee
244 19:48:59 <stevenknight> because it assigns ownership it scares corporate lawyers
245 19:49:20 <garyo-home> great. So it's just getting people signed up?
246 19:49:31 <stevenknight> if we go with our current one
247 19:49:36 <garyo-home> I think I already signed one, now that I think about it. ???
248 19:49:47 <stevenknight> we can make it less scary by finding a version that lets them just license to us under our same MIT trms
249 19:49:52 <stevenknight> garyo-home: yes, youdid
250 19:50:13 <stevenknight> needs some research time to google for examples of other projects who have done that
251 19:50:26 <stevenknight> and maybe run it by our SFLC lawyer
252 19:50:34 <Greg_Noel> I feel left out; nobody asked me ;-(
253 19:50:45 <garyo-home> it was a long long time ago.
254 19:51:08 <stevenknight> yes, it was enough of a bother relative to the benefit we were getting that i got lazy and dropped it
255 19:51:24 <Greg_Noel> There are several samples on the net; I found one for Python and Mozilla pretty easily.
256 19:51:25 <stevenknight> i mean, it involves talking to lawyers... :-/
257 19:51:49 <stevenknight> i thought those were ownership agreements
258 19:51:53 <stevenknight> bt that's from a long time ago
259 19:52:02 <stevenknight> so i could be out of date
260 19:52:43 <garyo-home> ok, well glad we have something at least.
261 19:52:51 <Greg_Noel> IANAL, but I think all it has to do is agree to license under MIT terms
262 19:53:00 <stevenknight> yes, that's right
263 19:53:23 <garyo-home> Wow, there's quite a long retriage list for 1.0.x.
264 19:54:00 <stevenknight> yeah
265 19:55:28 <stevenknight> i'm thinking we should take this part off line
266 19:55:33 <garyo-home> too much for me tonight.
267 19:55:34 <stevenknight> rather than get started on it right now
268 19:55:37 <stevenknight> exactly
269 19:55:50 <stevenknight> greg, i see you've started on the spreadsheet
270 19:55:54 <stevenknight> if you can do your update
271 19:55:56 <Greg_Noel> Maybe meet again tomorrow?
272 19:56:05 <garyo-home> I'll work on that for next week though, as well as actually getting some contributions in :-/
273 19:56:11 <stevenknight> and gary, if you have time to at least skim it in the next day or so for any places where you disagree with greg+me?
274 19:56:17 <Greg_Noel> Actually, I've been through it once, but I only annotated those I thought should change
275 19:56:19 <garyo-home> yes, definitely.
276 19:56:21 <stevenknight> me too re: contributions
277 19:56:42 <garyo-home> good. Next week, same time, same place?
278 19:56:59 <stevenknight> works for me, so far as i know
279 19:57:03 <Greg_Noel> If there's a consensus of three, whoever's the third should just do it.
280 19:57:05 <stevenknight> we're going to be in the middle of moving again, unfortunately
281 19:57:13 <Greg_Noel> again?
282 19:57:15 <stevenknight> Greg_Noel: just do it ++
283 19:57:19 <stevenknight> yes
284 19:57:24 <stevenknight> our landlord is in foreclosure
285 19:57:25 <garyo-home> makes sense to me too.
286 19:57:27 <stevenknight> welcome to california
287 19:57:39 <Greg_Noel> But don't californicate...
288 19:57:40 <garyo-home> Steven: right, you were wrestling with that last week.
289 19:57:44 <stevenknight> LOL
290 19:57:49 <garyo-home> Too bad!
291 19:58:07 <garyo-home> Maybe your new place will be better anyway?
292 19:58:07 <stevenknight> yeah, we ended up finding a better place, but still have the hassle now of actually moving
293 19:58:12 <garyo-home> :-)
294 19:58:38 <garyo-home> well good luck with it.
295 19:58:46 <stevenknight> thnx
296 19:58:51 <Greg_Noel> When's the deadline to move? Should we consider delaying 1.0.1 until the end of the week?
297 19:58:51 <garyo-home> I'm going to get some sleep now, g' night.
298 19:59:06 <stevenknight> no, keep it on schedule
299 19:59:21 <Greg_Noel> ok, that makes triaging harder, but we'll do what we can.
300 19:59:34 <Greg_Noel> Gary, you still there?
301 19:59:40 <garyo-home> yes.
302 20:00:12 <Greg_Noel> Oh, I already said that; old age: I'll just repeat that if you form the consensus, just mark the issue.
303 20:00:21 <garyo-home> Will do.
304 20:00:29 <Greg_Noel> then g'night all
305 20:00:35 <garyo-home> ok, c u later.
306 20:00:44 <stevenknight> okay, i'm going to go see if i can find the right combination of ubuntu hardy packges to build the doc...
307 20:00:47 * Greg_Noel has been marked as being away
308 20:00:54 <stevenknight> and then maybe get a checkpoint release out
309 20:01:00 <stevenknight> 'night
310 20:01:09 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
311 20:01:15 <garyo-home> Steven: what about my pkg list on the wiki?
312 20:01:18 <garyo-home> Oh well, he's gone.
313 20:01:21 <Greg_Noel> too late
314 20:01:30 <garyo-home> ok, bye now.
315 20:01:35 <Greg_Noel> 'nite
316 20:01:40 * garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.1/2008070208]")
317
