Please note:The SCons wiki is now restored from the attack in March 2013. All old passwords have been invalidated. Please reset your password if you have an account. If you note missing pages, please report them to webmaster@scons.org. Also, new account creation is currently disabled due to an ongoing spam flood (2013/08/27).
   1 18:48:49 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   2 19:04:12 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@c-67-169-176-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
   3 19:04:21 <stevenknight>	hey garyo-home
   4 19:04:28 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
   5 19:04:37 <stevenknight>	anyone else here?
   6 19:04:48 <GregNoel>	Hey, I just got here; give me a minute.
   7 19:04:54 <garyo-home>	Hi Steven.  I'm trying to get some spreadsheet bugs marked up, but am too slow :-(
   8 19:05:01 <garyo-home>	Hi, Greg.
   9 19:05:23 <stevenknight>	i just got home
  10 19:05:31 <stevenknight>	have to walk the dog first...
  11 19:05:38 <stevenknight>	should be ~10 minutes
  12 19:05:50 <stevenknight>	do what you can to start and i'll catch up
  13 19:05:49 <garyo-home>	OK, I'll work on my spreadsheet comments
  14 19:05:56 <stevenknight>	thanks
  15 19:14:07 <garyo-home>	OK, I'm more or less ready; Greg are you there?
  16 19:17:25 <garyo-home>	Anyone?
  17 19:17:56 <GregNoel>	Hi, I went to get some tea...
  18 19:18:28 <garyo-home>	Hi.  Shall we start?
  19 19:19:03 <GregNoel>	sure
  20 19:19:13 <GregNoel>	2198
  21 19:19:37 <GregNoel>	I don't understand your comment
  22 19:19:53 <garyo-home>	Can we get the OP to add the 1.5.2 changes too?
  23 19:20:13 <stevenknight>	back
  24 19:20:15 <GregNoel>	If he has one.  1.5.2 is getting pretty rare.
  25 19:21:06 <garyo-home>	I just mean to modify all the files he mentioned, to get rid of .sources and .implicit -- that's what he's proposing, right?
  26 19:21:06 <stevenknight>	maybe if it doesn't apply cleanly to 1.5.2 we delay to 2.x
  27 19:21:10 <stevenknight>	more incentive to get it out
  28 19:21:24 <GregNoel>	hmmm... not a bad idea
  29 19:21:35 <garyo-home>	From looking at the bug, I think that's better
  30 19:21:47 <garyo-home>	2.0 Ludwig p3?
  31 19:22:17 <GregNoel>	do you mean 2.0 or 2.x?
  32 19:22:23 <garyo-home>	2.x is fine.
  33 19:22:28 <GregNoel>	works
  34 19:22:36 <stevenknight>	2.x, with a note re: pulling it in if works w/1.5.2
  35 19:22:45 <GregNoel>	done
  36 19:22:50 <garyo-home>	I think he says it won't.
  37 19:22:51 <GregNoel>	2199
  38 19:23:12 <garyo-home>	Your gmake file manip functions.  I like it.
  39 19:23:32 <GregNoel>	I'm a bit reluctant to commit to 1.x, but I can give it a shot
  40 19:23:50 <garyo-home>	Good; if it slips, it slips.  No big deal -- a nice-to-have feature.
  41 19:24:09 <GregNoel>	OK, 1.x p3 or p4?
  42 19:24:22 <stevenknight>	p4 if it's that slippable
  43 19:24:27 <garyo-home>	Seems like there's a lot in 1.x already...
  44 19:24:34 <stevenknight>	yep
  45 19:24:37 <GregNoel>	yeah
  46 19:24:48 <garyo-home>	ok, 1.x p4 greg.
  47 19:24:54 <GregNoel>	done
  48 19:25:14 <garyo-home>	2200 you guys want in 1.x too, but I'm skeptical.
  49 19:25:24 <GregNoel>	I'm swayed by Steven's argument.
  50 19:25:52 <garyo-home>	Would any Execute clear all node caches?
  51 19:26:06 <GregNoel>	I agree that #2 would be more work, so I'll go for 2.x
  52 19:26:13 <garyo-home>	(Do we even really care about caching during reading SConscripts?)
  53 19:26:27 <garyo-home>	OK, 2.x p3 Ludwig then?
  54 19:26:29 <GregNoel>	Yes, any Execute() of an Action we don't provide.
  55 19:26:45 <stevenknight>	i think any Execute() should clear its targets
  56 19:26:52 <GregNoel>	(Yes, we care; it avoids disk hits, which cost time.)
  57 19:27:00 <GregNoel>	Execute() has no targets.
  58 19:27:02 <garyo-home>	But we won't know the targets w/ proposal #2.
  59 19:27:12 <stevenknight>	right, that's why i favor proposal #2
  60 19:27:29 <stevenknight>	wait, i see what you mean
  61 19:27:33 <stevenknight>	i read that as "w/out"
  62 19:27:38 <stevenknight>	hmm
  63 19:28:30 <garyo-home>	maybe we shouldn't design it here, just mark as "needs discussion" or something
  64 19:28:42 <GregNoel>	agree, but where?
  65 19:29:02 <garyo-home>	2.x p3 (mark in the issue itself, in the text)
  66 19:29:55 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll make myself a CC
  67 19:29:58 <stevenknight>	(sorry, interrupt)
  68 19:30:09 <GregNoel>	Should I add you two as well?
  69 19:30:14 <stevenknight>	okay, 2.x p3
  70 19:30:17 <stevenknight>	yes, cc me
  71 19:30:24 <garyo-home>	ok.  Or just paste in this section of the irc log :-)
  72 19:30:30 <GregNoel>	That, too
  73 19:30:43 <stevenknight>	okay, done?
  74 19:30:49 <GregNoel>	I'd like it a bit sooner; maybe 2.x p2?
  75 19:30:57 <stevenknight>	i can go with p2
  76 19:31:00 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me
  77 19:31:03 <GregNoel>	done
  78 19:31:12 <GregNoel>	2201
  79 19:31:13 <garyo-home>	2201: I just asked the OP for a testcase.
  80 19:32:07 <GregNoel>	It's not clear to me what he wants; Nodes have cached info, not Executors.
  81 19:32:13 <garyo-home>	Steven, if you think it's a real issue maybe 1.x/p3/Ludwig is the way to go.
  82 19:32:25 <GregNoel>	Let's see what he offers and review it next time.
  83 19:32:36 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me.
  84 19:32:40 <garyo-home>	defer.
  85 19:33:05 <GregNoel>	stevenknight, OK?
  86 19:33:18 <stevenknight>	(sorry, more interrupts)
  87 19:33:37 <garyo-home>	I think so
  88 19:33:38 <stevenknight>	well, just because i think it's an issue doesn't mean it is
  89 19:33:41 <stevenknight>	i haven't done the triage
  90 19:34:00 <GregNoel>	Let's look at it again next time, then
  91 19:34:01 <stevenknight>	so getting a test case seems like it should come before committing the resources
  92 19:34:14 <stevenknight>	done, ask for test case and re-triage
  93 19:34:18 <GregNoel>	done
  94 19:34:21 <GregNoel>	2204
  95 19:34:23 <garyo-home>	2204: I like Steven's idea of just a better error with more context.
  96 19:35:34 <GregNoel>	I'm not sure I understand what Seven is suggesting
  97 19:35:20 <garyo-home>	We need more developers.
  98 19:35:31 <stevenknight>	garyo-home:  agreed
  99 19:35:36 <GregNoel>	yes
 100 19:35:53 <GregNoel>	Is Mati still around?
 101 19:36:14 <garyo-home>	Good question.  I'll look him up.
 102 19:37:08 <GregNoel>	Steven, if you know how to fix 2204, do you really think it should be 1.2?
 103 19:37:19 <stevenknight>	GregNoel:  all those errors come through the env.arg2nodes() methods that translate strings to Nodes
 104 19:37:39 <stevenknight>	that provides a place for some code to catch the mismatch between factory and returned Node
 105 19:38:02 <garyo-home>	At least print some context to help the user find the bug.
 106 19:38:21 <stevenknight>	right now the underlying lookup that catches it return a normal Python TypeError because I thought I was being "pythonic" in throwing TypeError for those mismatches
 107 19:38:25 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  OK, I'll trust you.  a2n is called a lot, so it can't be slowed down too much.
 108 19:38:35 <stevenknight>	fair point
 109 19:38:44 <stevenknight>	1.2, p3, me?
 110 19:38:51 <GregNoel>	done
 111 19:38:51 <garyo-home>	Right, but he's just going to catch the TypeError and throw something else.  No slowdown.
 112 19:38:59 <stevenknight>	done
 113 19:39:01 <stevenknight>	2205:
 114 19:39:30 <GregNoel>	2205: dup 1957?
 115 19:39:36 <stevenknight>	there's too much in 1.x, i'm going with you guys on 2.x
 116 19:40:15 <garyo-home>	I think it has to be 2.x unfortunately.  Could be dup of 1957; there's a patch in 1957 too, not sure of its quality
 117 19:40:23 <garyo-home>	(I didn't really look at it)
 118 19:40:30 <stevenknight>	it's pretty extensive
 119 19:40:38 <stevenknight>	not clear to me it's a dup without more triage
 120 19:40:44 <GregNoel>	defer?
 121 19:41:22 <garyo-home>	I think it is a dup, at least 1957 tries to convert all exceptions into BuildFailures, and 2205 is an exception coming through.
 122 19:41:33 <garyo-home>	(TaskmasterException)
 123 19:43:08 <GregNoel>	Either defer for more triage or Gary for research?
 124 19:43:20 <stevenknight>	defer
 125 19:43:40 <garyo-home>	ok, I'll research and if it's a dup I'll mark it as such.
 126 19:44:02 <stevenknight>	thanks
 127 19:44:06 <GregNoel>	done
 128 19:44:26 <GregNoel>	2207
 129 19:44:31 <garyo-home>	2207: works as designed imho
 130 19:45:14 <GregNoel>	Yeah, but IOError is not cool
 131 19:45:29 <stevenknight>	agree w/Greg
 132 19:45:44 <stevenknight>	stack traces scare users
 133 19:46:06 <garyo-home>	... but finding everywhere scons opens a file and seeing if the i/o err is due to dangling symlink could be a big mess.
 134 19:46:09 <GregNoel>	It probably should throw the same error that the Taskmaster throws for a missing source
 135 19:46:43 <stevenknight>	right, but it doesn't have to be absolutely everywhere
 136 19:46:44 <garyo-home>	Actually I claim a missing source err would be even more confusing to users.
 137 19:46:51 <stevenknight>	just take care of this one and make the world that much better
 138 19:47:12 <garyo-home>	mumble, ok I guess
 139 19:47:16 <stevenknight>	there aren't *that* many places where do a direct open like this
 140 19:47:26 <stevenknight>	usually it's under get_contents() or something
 141 19:47:35 <garyo-home>	good point
 142 19:47:50 <stevenknight>	okay, done
 143 19:47:53 <GregNoel>	done
 144 19:48:01 <GregNoel>	er, wait
 145 19:48:08 <garyo-home>	steven?
 146 19:48:11 <stevenknight>	yes?
 147 19:48:19 <GregNoel>	did we agree on milestone and priority?
 148 19:48:22 <garyo-home>	are you taking it?
 149 19:48:24 <stevenknight>	oh
 150 19:48:32 <stevenknight>	yeah, i'll take it
 151 19:48:38 <GregNoel>	ok, when?
 152 19:48:50 <stevenknight>	1.x p4
 153 19:48:53 <GregNoel>	done
 154 19:49:04 <GregNoel>	2208
 155 19:49:36 <GregNoel>	I'd like to know what the performance impact will be, but I like the idea of a warning that's always on.
 156 19:49:45 <GregNoel>	er, defaults to on.
 157 19:50:32 <garyo-home>	agree w/ greg
 158 19:50:53 <GregNoel>	is it a dup of 'ancient bug'?
 159 19:51:13 <stevenknight>	'ancient bug'?
 160 19:51:23 <garyo-home>	let me see...
 161 19:51:33 <GregNoel>	Gary says he filed an 'ancient bug' on it.
 162 19:52:30 <stevenknight>	ah
 163 19:52:29 <garyo-home>	Can't find it anymore.
 164 19:52:52 <stevenknight>	i think 1.x, p3, me
 165 19:52:59 <GregNoel>	OK, if we find it later, we'll worry about it then.
 166 19:53:03 <GregNoel>	done
 167 19:53:15 <stevenknight>	note re: vaidating performance impact before  submitting
 168 19:53:21 <GregNoel>	right
 169 19:53:40 <GregNoel>	2209
 170 19:54:10 <stevenknight>	future
 171 19:54:36 <GregNoel>	it's in script support, so it may not even be relevant to other front-ends
 172 19:54:40 <garyo-home>	future p4 ok w/ me, unless I'm missing something
 173 19:54:50 <GregNoel>	future p4 it is
 174 19:55:02 <GregNoel>	2210
 175 19:55:11 <stevenknight>	shoot, i'm going to have to stop soon
 176 19:55:20 <garyo-home>	me too, sorry.
 177 19:55:29 <garyo-home>	We can do a few more
 178 19:55:50 <garyo-home>	2210: future p2?
 179 19:55:53 <stevenknight>	2210:  future p2
 180 19:55:55 <stevenknight>	done
 181 19:55:55 <GregNoel>	I'll take it as anytime, but not soon
 182 19:56:01 <garyo-home>	2211 anytime p5 steven?
 183 19:56:24 <stevenknight>	done
 184 19:56:28 <GregNoel>	done
 185 19:56:40 <garyo-home>	2212 is vs_revamp
 186 19:56:50 <stevenknight>	yes, vs_revamp
 187 19:56:56 <garyo-home>	soon I hope
 188 19:56:58 <GregNoel>	How should I mark it?
 189 19:57:10 <GregNoel>	dup of something?
 190 19:57:28 <stevenknight>	no, 1.x p3, add VisualStudio keyword
 191 19:57:33 <stevenknight>	put david's name on it
 192 19:57:33 <GregNoel>	done
 193 19:57:51 <stevenknight>	2213:  2.x p4
 194 19:58:11 <GregNoel>	done
 195 19:58:20 <stevenknight>	2215 i just closed
 196 19:58:32 <GregNoel>	no, open is a function; file is a type.
 197 19:58:49 <GregNoel>	It may not be obvious, but there's a distinction.
 198 19:59:01 <stevenknight>	yes, but i submit it's not crucial for 1.5.2 compatibility
 199 19:59:09 <stevenknight>	which only has old-style classes anyway
 200 19:59:12 <GregNoel>	good point.
 201 19:59:17 <GregNoel>	OK, done
 202 19:59:31 <stevenknight>	all right, gotta run
 203 19:59:33 <GregNoel>	last one
 204 19:59:42 <stevenknight>	right
 205 19:59:48 <garyo-home>	2216?
 206 19:59:47 <stevenknight>	2216:  anytime p5 me
 207 19:59:53 <GregNoel>	done
 208 20:00:06 <stevenknight>	okay, catch you guys next week
 209 20:00:21 <garyo-home>	ok, sounds good.  Will try to get my 1.1 issues done!
 210 20:00:22 <GregNoel>	Next week, or should we go for two weeks?
 211 20:00:31 <stevenknight>	i'll probably send email re: trying for a different time
 212 20:00:38 <GregNoel>	When's the RC coming out?
 213 20:00:42 <stevenknight>	my transportation situation has changed a bit so this time isn't working as well
 214 20:00:56 <garyo-home>	actually now that you mention it every week is beginning to be a family issue :-/
 215 20:00:56 <GregNoel>	OK, we'll look for the message
 216 20:01:01 <stevenknight>	is that this week?  (you'd think i'd read the roadmap...  :-))
 217 20:01:18 <GregNoel>	yes, next week is supposed to be 1.1
 218 20:01:20 <stevenknight>	yeah, i'm not popular at home on Monday nights... :-(
 219 20:01:31 <GregNoel>	Charger football!!!
 220 20:01:33 <stevenknight>	okay, i'll get an RC out in the next day or two
 221 20:01:45 <garyo-home>	we can discuss scheduling bug parties later...
 222 20:01:47 <stevenknight>	oh, man, Greg, sorry things are starting so rocky for you guys
 223 20:02:04 <GregNoel>	don't tell me; it's being TiVoed
 224 20:02:18 <stevenknight>	i meant the season, not tonight
 225 20:02:22 <stevenknight>	tough losses
 226 20:02:27 <stevenknight>	especially to ^AS#(*& Denver
 227 20:02:43 <GregNoel>	yeah, two losses by a total of three points.  There ought to be a law...
 228 20:03:01 <GregNoel>	Or we should kill all the lawyers, as Shakespere says (the ref is a lawyer)...
 229 20:02:57 <stevenknight>	all right, i'm out of here
 230 20:02:59 <stevenknight>	later...
 231 20:03:06 *	stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
 232 20:03:08 <GregNoel>	G'night
 233 20:03:38 <GregNoel>	I'm going to go watch the game; cu later.
 234 20:03:46 <garyo-home>	bye
 235 20:03:55 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 236 20:04:10 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.1/2008070208]")
 237 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-09-22 (last edited 2008-09-29 06:02:50 by ip68-7-77-81)