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)