1 17:56:53 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   2 17:59:18 <GregNoel>	Hey, Gary...
   3 17:59:25 <garyo-home>	Hi, Greg.
   4 18:00:00 <GregNoel>	Steven's not here yet; anyone else here for the bug party?
   5 17:59:48 <garyo-home>	I gave a talk on SCons last weekend.  Just need to upload it to the wiki.
   6 18:00:27 <GregNoel>	Yes, you mentioned it last time.  The wiki sounds like a good place.
   7 18:01:06 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@72.14.224.1) has joined #scons
   8 18:01:14 <GregNoel>	Speaking of the devil...
   9 18:01:28 <garyo-home>	Hi, Steven.
  10 18:01:51 <garyo-home>	I just uploaded my SCons talk to the wiki. http://scons.org/wiki/GaryOberbrunner?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=SCons-talk-2008.pdf
  11 18:01:53 <stevenknight>	hey
  12 18:03:01 <garyo-home>	So, how about getting going?
  13 18:03:11 <GregNoel>	I'll look at it afterward; yes, let's go.
  14 18:03:22 <GregNoel>	2220
  15 18:03:44 <stevenknight>	sorry, hang on, still getting set up
  16 18:04:12 <GregNoel>	Apparently it works in 0.98.something, but not since
  17 18:04:06 <garyo-home>	close as invalid, make new issue w/ test case & description, then retriage?
  18 18:04:40 <GregNoel>	Yes, but I'd feel better if we settled the timeframe now.
  19 18:04:56 <stevenknight>	agree w/garyo-home re: invalid and new issue
  20 18:05:05 <garyo-home>	IMHO it depends on how serious the *actual* issue is.
  21 18:05:20 <garyo-home>	If it only happens with nested builders, then 2.x p4 etc.
  22 18:05:43 <GregNoel>	No, my example used nothing but VariantDir
  23 18:06:09 <garyo-home>	Ah yes, I see that one now.
  24 18:06:13 <stevenknight>	okay, if greg's example is pure variantdir and a 0.98 regression
  25 18:06:24 <stevenknight>	then either 1.x
  26 18:06:39 <stevenknight>	or 1.2 (with likelihood of falling off the plate depending on priority relative to other stuff)
  27 18:06:44 <stevenknight>	my name on it
  28 18:07:09 <garyo-home>	ok, then 1.x p3?  1.2 is impossible at this point IMHO.
  29 18:07:11 <GregNoel>	Then I'd suggest 1.3 or 1.x
  30 18:07:44 <stevenknight>	1.x p3 is fine with me
  31 18:07:50 <GregNoel>	ok, done
  32 18:08:14 <garyo-home>	2225: 1.x Jim p3?
  33 18:08:21 <GregNoel>	2226, yes
  34 18:08:43 <stevenknight>	i have 2225 next...
  35 18:08:43 <GregNoel>	oops, 2225
  36 18:08:44 <garyo-home>	2225 or 2226, Greg?
  37 18:09:32 <GregNoel>	The new spreadsheet from Google allows me to set the font larger; you bet I'm going to use that next time so I can read the thing.
  38 18:09:15 <garyo-home>	consensus?
  39 18:09:38 <GregNoel>	yes, consensus
  40 18:09:48 <stevenknight>	2225 yes consensus
  41 18:09:55 <stevenknight>	glad to hear from jim...
  42 18:10:07 <GregNoel>	Yes, we've missed him
  43 18:10:21 <garyo-home>	re: jim, yes!
  44 18:10:00 <garyo-home>	2226: wontfix
  45 18:10:49 <stevenknight>	2226:  greg, agree w/WONTFIX?
  46 18:10:49 <GregNoel>	I can see the use case for 2226: do it once for the common case, rather than in dribs and drabs.
  47 18:11:10 <GregNoel>	I'd like to see a better patch, for sure
  48 18:11:14 <jtc>	For 2225, I agree with Jim's comment on the spreadsheet that in the long term we need to look at quoting more holistically. In particular, I think we need to look if we can defer quoting until just before spawning the command. Most make implementations will avoid spawning a subshell if there are no shell metacharacters.  It is difficult for scons to do the same if everything has been quoted (although I suppose a de-quoter could be written).
  49 18:11:14 <garyo-home>	But it only speeds up the initial build.  After that it's cached anyway.
  50 18:11:33 <garyo-home>	Hi jtc!
  51 18:11:45 <stevenknight>	jtc: hi!  agree w/what you said re: quoting
  52 18:12:09 <garyo-home>	Yes, definitely.  We just need to keep all cmd lines as lists or CLVars etc. until the last minute.
  53 18:12:10 <jtc>	At IDE, we experienced problems with high -jN, as the subshells caused us to run against the per-user process limit twice as fast as we would have liked.
  54 18:12:24 <GregNoel>	Yes, I hope the subprocess module will allow us to clarify it.
  55 18:12:34 <garyo-home>	Good point, Greg.
  56 18:12:48 <stevenknight>	subprocess will help
  57 18:13:02 <stevenknight>	but you still have command pipelines and redirection that will have to be detected
  58 18:13:17 <garyo-home>	Sure, but if it's all in one place it's not that hard.
  59 18:13:18 <GregNoel>	I don't see Jim here, but we've talked aabout how to do the quoting internally; maybe we should jointly prepare a proposal.
  60 18:13:35 <stevenknight>	that sounds good
  61 18:13:40 <garyo-home>	That would be great.  Discuss on ML.
  62 18:13:47 <GregNoel>	yes
  63 18:13:51 <stevenknight>	on to 2226?
  64 18:13:58 <stevenknight>	or back to it
  65 18:14:17 <garyo-home>	2226: we have too much to do already; this is a trivial addition even if it were fully formed.
  66 18:14:36 <GregNoel>	for 2225, I'm only proposing that we give it the 'toolchain' keyword so we look at it again when we're revamping the toolchain.
  67 18:14:49 <GregNoel>	sigh, 2226,
  68 18:14:49 <stevenknight>	2225:  toolchain++
  69 18:14:55 <garyo-home>	ok I guess, but I don't think it has anything to do w/ that really.
  70 18:15:08 <stevenknight>	sorry, i'm confused
  71 18:15:43 <GregNoel>	My eyes can't resolve 5 v. 6 so I keep typing the wrong one.  Sorry.
  72 18:15:56 <garyo-home>	no prob.
  73 18:16:03 <stevenknight>	2226:  not clear if David's trying to make it easier to configure or more efficient (one compilation vs. multiple)
  74 18:16:17 <garyo-home>	I thought it was just efficiency.
  75 18:16:19 <GregNoel>	a combination of both
  76 18:16:41 <stevenknight>	i think you give up too much by putting everything into one compilation
  77 18:16:45 <GregNoel>	trying a dozen things at once is much faster if they all work;
  78 18:17:00 <GregNoel>	if not, you fall back to testing one at a time
  79 18:17:32 <stevenknight>	within the call?  or do you have to write that logic in your SConscript?
  80 18:17:40 <garyo-home>	imho, put it on the wiki as a custom SConf test.
  81 18:18:06 <garyo-home>	I think David's point is that on most platforms all the funcs will be there, so you just want a quick sanity check.
  82 18:18:25 <GregNoel>	yes
  83 18:18:27 <jtc>	As the maintainer of the autotools build for ACE/TAO (which may be the largest single autotools using project), I'm not sure if that holds.
  84 18:18:46 <garyo-home>	jtc: I agree, just pointing out his rationale.
  85 18:19:27 <jtc>	For example, it has feature tests for traditional UNIX and traditional MS Windows APIs.  You typically won't find both.
  86 18:19:55 <garyo-home>	right, that's why I think the whole idea's a bit questionable.
  87 18:19:57 <GregNoel>	Uh, no, you'd combine the *IX tests or the DOS tests not both in the same flow
  88 18:20:49 <GregNoel>	But I'm willing to go along; we're taking too long on this.
  89 18:20:51 <garyo-home>	greg: true, but you're still not going to test for *every* DOS func you call, so it's not really here nor there.
  90 18:21:23 <garyo-home>	How about 2227?
  91 18:21:34 <stevenknight>	yeah, let's move on -- this really seems like an unnecessary optimization
  92 18:21:40 <stevenknight>	2227: 
  93 18:22:07 <garyo-home>	2227 is the first time I've ever heard anyone say "ParseConfig works fine on windows"
  94 18:22:11 <garyo-home>	:-/
  95 18:22:17 <stevenknight>	consensus 2.x p3 ?
  96 18:22:29 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me
  97 18:22:31 <GregNoel>	ok, 
  98 18:22:46 <GregNoel>	maybe we'll change our mind by then
  99 18:23:14 <GregNoel>	2228, consensus?
 100 18:23:27 <garyo-home>	yep
 101 18:23:30 <stevenknight>	2228:  done
 102 18:23:42 <GregNoel>	2229, consensus?
 103 18:23:43 <garyo-home>	2229, ditto
 104 18:23:59 <stevenknight>	2229:  consensus
 105 18:23:58 <GregNoel>	2230
 106 18:24:19 <garyo-home>	I'd like it, but maybe makes more sense for 2.x than 1.x.
 107 18:24:34 <GregNoel>	2230, I'll go with Steven
 108 18:24:43 <stevenknight>	2230:  okay, 2.x or anytime?
 109 18:25:11 <garyo-home>	I think it's worth 2.x rather than anytime
 110 18:25:16 <stevenknight>	okay, 2.x
 111 18:25:33 <GregNoel>	you suggested 1.x in the spreadsheet?
 112 18:26:10 <stevenknight>	after more thought i'm agreewing w/garyo's suggestion that 2.x is more realistic
 113 18:26:21 <GregNoel>	ok, I'll go with 2.x.  what priority?
 114 18:26:45 <garyo-home>	p3 or p4, steven's preference
 115 18:26:49 <stevenknight>	p3
 116 18:26:51 <GregNoel>	done
 117 18:26:54 <garyo-home>	2231: more warn opts
 118 18:27:08 <GregNoel>	Er, not quite.
 119 18:27:41 <GregNoel>	The idea is that a user may not know which new deprecation flags have been added
 120 18:28:03 <GregNoel>	so they just use --warn=all-deprecated and they get all of them
 121 18:28:18 <stevenknight>	that's what --warn=deprecated is supposed to do
 122 18:28:35 <stevenknight>	the hierarchy means that it will match all of the subclassed DeprecatedWarnings classes
 123 18:28:51 <GregNoel>	No, the first deprecation stage is a warning that is _off_ by default
 124 18:29:05 <stevenknight>	???
 125 18:29:18 <GregNoel>	We didn't use it in this last round, but that's the way it's supposed to be.
 126 18:29:12 <stevenknight>	if you specify --warn=deprecated that means "on"
 127 18:29:21 <stevenknight>	and it will (or should) match your explicit settings
 128 18:29:26 <stevenknight>	before it looks at the defaults
 129 18:29:49 <GregNoel>	So there's a state you can't specify on the command line?
 130 18:29:49 <stevenknight>	didn't use what in this last round?
 131 18:29:58 <stevenknight>	what state?
 132 18:30:34 <GregNoel>	Three states, just like it says in the issue: warning off by default, warning on by default, warning not suppressible.
 133 18:31:11 <GregNoel>	And three master control options: turn on options normally off, use the default, and turn off suppressible options.
 134 18:31:35 <stevenknight>	sorry, i really don't get it -- i don't think we should ever have warnings that aren't suppressible
 135 18:32:10 <GregNoel>	OK, you will get screams of outrage when users are suddenly forced to upgrade.
 136 18:32:28 <stevenknight>	???
 137 18:32:59 <GregNoel>	Yes, there will be a set of people who _always_ run with --warn=no-deprecated
 138 18:33:25 <GregNoel>	They will be rudely surprised when they are suddenly forced to change their scripts
 139 18:32:04 <stevenknight>	maybe we should take this off line so you can explain it to me
 140 18:33:11 <garyo-home>	I think offlining this is a good idea.
 141 18:33:50 <GregNoel>	I'll agree to that, so retriage the issue next time?
 142 18:33:57 <garyo-home>	ok
 143 18:34:03 <stevenknight>	ok
 144 18:34:14 <garyo-home>	(w/ additional info in the ticket)
 145 18:34:22 <GregNoel>	ok
 146 18:34:35 <GregNoel>	2232, I checked, it's fixed, I'll close it
 147 18:34:46 <garyo-home>	great
 148 18:34:50 <stevenknight>	cool
 149 18:35:09 <garyo-home>	2233: I'll reply to OP and get details
 150 18:35:20 <GregNoel>	good, I'll leave it to you
 151 18:35:32 <stevenknight>	2233:  good, thanks
 152 18:35:39 <GregNoel>	retriage next time then?
 153 18:35:59 <garyo-home>	sure, depending on reply.
 154 18:36:18 <GregNoel>	done
 155 18:37:21 <GregNoel>	2234, consensus for anytime?  I don't like making an actual defect an open-ended issue.
 156 18:38:26 <garyo-home>	It seems really easy; 1.x should be OK.
 157 18:38:35 <stevenknight>	2234:  1.x is fine with me
 158 18:38:50 <GregNoel>	what priority?
 159 18:39:05 <stevenknight>	p3
 160 18:39:11 <GregNoel>	done
 161 18:39:27 <GregNoel>	2235
 162 18:39:48 <garyo-home>	definitely make code agree w/ doc here
 163 18:40:17 <stevenknight>	2235:  agree
 164 18:40:36 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll run regressions and see what it catches.  As far as I know, there's only one test that does anything with them.
 165 18:40:48 <garyo-home>	(hmm, my kids are still awake, it's 9:40 on a school night... grr)
 166 18:41:02 <stevenknight>	garyo-home:  i feel your pain...
 167 18:41:07 <garyo-home>	greg: regressions = good idea.
 168 18:41:22 <GregNoel>	OK, anytime is acceptable?
 169 18:41:24 <stevenknight>	okay, done with current issues
 170 18:41:29 <jtc>	the curse of parenthood...
 171 18:41:33 <stevenknight>	anytime is fine with me -- or research
 172 18:41:53 <garyo-home>	anytime
 173 18:41:54 <GregNoel>	anytime
 174 18:42:00 <GregNoel>	done
 175 18:42:01 <stevenknight>	done
 176 18:42:22 <GregNoel>	One question before we go on...
 177 18:42:50 <garyo-home>	Hey, allofasudden I can edit 2005h2 and never could before (using the regular link).  Maybe it's the new google docs upgrade.
 178 18:42:55 <garyo-home>	yes, greg?
 179 18:43:17 <GregNoel>	Steven mentioned that he's normally getting off the shuttle at 18h30 or thereabouts; should we move the time earlier by a half-hour?
 180 18:43:45 <garyo-home>	That makes it a little harder for me.
 181 18:45:04 <GregNoel>	I suspected that, but it took us 45 min to clear tonight's issues; we need more than a half-hour if we're meeting at 18h00
 182 18:45:25 <stevenknight>	i could see about shifting my schedule on the nights we have these
 183 18:45:33 <stevenknight>	so happened that i worked from home today
 184 18:45:54 <GregNoel>	Always a good schedule... {;-}
 185 18:46:10 <garyo-home>	I could probably do it at 18h30 though, since it's only every other week.
 186 18:47:02 <GregNoel>	Is that better for you, Steven?
 187 18:47:15 <stevenknight>	probably a little
 188 18:47:29 <stevenknight>	if i take the shuttle on those nights, it gets in right about 18h30
 189 18:47:42 <stevenknight>	but i could find a wifi cafe and join pretty shortly after
 190 18:47:43 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll post it that way; Steven, will you keep us informed if it has to move?
 191 18:47:50 <stevenknight>	will do
 192 18:48:09 <GregNoel>	OK, onward.
 193 18:48:18 <garyo-home>	Wait, I meant to say half hour earlier would be ok -- but half hour later is better for me, is that what we just agreed on?
 194 18:48:33 <stevenknight>	right, half hour later, 18h30 PDT, 21h30 EDT
 195 18:48:40 <garyo-home>	ok, thanks!
 196 18:48:51 <stevenknight>	cool
 197 18:49:03 <stevenknight>	shall we make some headway on 2005h2?
 198 18:49:39 <garyo-home>	1230: consensus worksforme
 199 18:49:40 <GregNoel>	worksforme
 200 18:49:45 <stevenknight>	done
 201 18:49:47 <stevenknight>	1235:
 202 18:49:54 <garyo-home>	consensus fixed
 203 18:50:03 <stevenknight>	i might have already closed it
 204 18:50:06 <stevenknight>	1241:
 205 18:50:14 <garyo-home>	invalid, I'm ok w/ that
 206 18:50:20 <stevenknight>	1241:  invalid
 207 18:50:21 <GregNoel>	done
 208 18:50:21 <stevenknight>	done
 209 18:50:40 <garyo-home>	1244: let me research that.  Looks like some good stuff might be in there.
 210 18:50:47 <stevenknight>	oh, damn -- that's right, i couldn't edit this for a while, either
 211 18:50:58 <stevenknight>	1244:  research, garyo, done
 212 18:51:10 <GregNoel>	done
 213 18:52:08 <GregNoel>	1249?
 214 18:52:23 <stevenknight>	1249:  i like your suggestion:  ludwig, research
 215 18:52:34 <garyo-home>	Could Mkdir just succeed if target exists, and also create intermediate dirs?
 216 18:52:54 <GregNoel>	It does.
 217 18:53:12 <GregNoel>	but it then tries to make the intermediate directory
 218 18:53:19 <GregNoel>	and fails
 219 18:53:26 <garyo-home>	... but why doesn't that Mkdir succeed also?
 220 18:53:52 <GregNoel>	os.mkdir fails: directory already exists
 221 18:54:00 <garyo-home>	It should trap that error and ignore it.
 222 18:54:27 <GregNoel>	Yes, it checks, but it checks _before_ the other Mkdir creates the directory
 223 18:55:00 <stevenknight>	needs some more research, then?  or greg, do you feel you've characterized it sufficiently to identify the right fix?
 224 18:55:21 <GregNoel>	Sure, but then, I think Ludwig should do it
 225 18:55:33 <garyo-home>	I can fix it in 10 minutes including test.
 226 18:55:37 <garyo-home>	Just give it to me.
 227 18:55:40 <GregNoel>	done
 228 18:55:55 <stevenknight>	done
 229 18:56:15 <garyo-home>	(But I'm only going to fix the proximate cause, not whatever Ludwig's patch is about.)
 230 18:56:23 <GregNoel>	Just make sure it still fails if it's a file (or whatnot) that's preventing the creation
 231 18:56:26 <stevenknight>	that works for me
 232 18:56:33 <garyo-home>	Good point, Greg.
 233 18:56:41 <GregNoel>	or file permissions, or anything else.
 234 18:56:52 <garyo-home>	Right, no problem.
 235 18:56:59 <GregNoel>	Ludwig's patch clears the cache when the directory is created
 236 18:57:24 <garyo-home>	Ah, right, so the next Mkdir gets the test right.
 237 18:57:37 <garyo-home>	ok let's move on
 238 18:57:38 <GregNoel>	you mean wrong
 239 18:57:43 <garyo-home>	:-)
 240 18:58:01 <stevenknight>	1253:  
 241 18:58:20 <stevenknight>	greg, did you reproduce with current scons?  or with 0.96.91?
 242 18:58:36 <GregNoel>	current, with the .sconsign he provided
 243 18:58:59 <stevenknight>	ah
 244 18:59:10 <stevenknight>	i'm inclined to either WORKSFORME or RESEARCH, then
 245 18:59:16 <stevenknight>	the .sconsign file would have changed since then
 246 18:59:21 <stevenknight>	so it's not surprising that we can't handle it
 247 18:59:30 <GregNoel>	but we should detect that, yes?
 248 18:59:51 <stevenknight>	we do.  that's why we print the warning
 249 19:00:07 <GregNoel>	Er, I think it's a fatal error now
 250 19:00:08 <stevenknight>	if we didn't detect it, you'd get a stack trace
 251 19:00:43 <GregNoel>	It's been a while, and I'm not positive, but I think it did give a stack trace
 252 19:01:23 <stevenknight>	okay, sounds like research me
 253 19:01:26 <GregNoel>	done
 254 19:01:38 <stevenknight>	note re: making sure it doesn't stack trace
 255 19:01:54 <GregNoel>	done
 256 19:02:28 <GregNoel>	1260
 257 19:02:37 <garyo-home>	1260: probably moot due to recent fortran work
 258 19:02:56 <GregNoel>	Probably, but I think David should check it out
 259 19:03:04 <garyo-home>	David should check, agreed.
 260 19:03:04 <stevenknight>	what greg said
 261 19:03:10 <stevenknight>	research, David?
 262 19:03:16 <GregNoel>	research?
 263 19:03:27 <garyo-home>	ok
 264 19:03:30 <GregNoel>	done
 265 19:03:54 <GregNoel>	1261, whatever you guys decide
 266 19:04:23 <garyo-home>	Interesting.  I hadn't seen that.  Do we have cygwin platform support now?
 267 19:04:35 <stevenknight>	kinda sorta
 268 19:04:49 <stevenknight>	never had a real cygwin expert do a thorough job with it
 269 19:05:11 <stevenknight>	we do have places where we account for cygwin differences
 270 19:05:35 <stevenknight>	(especially its really annoying characteristic of lying about case sensitivity)
 271 19:05:40 <garyo-home>	I don't think there's anything like this patch in tools now, and it looks pretty OK.  I'm inclined to take it seriously.
 272 19:05:46 <stevenknight>	agree
 273 19:06:05 <GregNoel>	(Three years old, remember)
 274 19:06:17 <garyo-home>	It's basically a gcc-lookalike with some tweaks.
 275 19:06:51 <stevenknight>	sounds reasonable
 276 19:06:55 <stevenknight>	i can take it
 277 19:06:56 <garyo-home>	Greg: if we have this in, it'll help us remember what to do on cygwin in the toolchain stuff.
 278 19:07:02 <garyo-home>	Steven: great
 279 19:07:07 <stevenknight>	what time frame?
 280 19:07:11 <garyo-home>	2.x?
 281 19:07:16 <stevenknight>	that sounds right
 282 19:07:17 <garyo-home>	p3?
 283 19:07:21 <stevenknight>	yes
 284 19:07:24 <GregNoel>	done
 285 19:07:27 <stevenknight>	add a cygwin keyword?
 286 19:07:43 <GregNoel>	or 'toolchain'?
 287 19:07:56 <stevenknight>	or both?
 288 19:07:59 <garyo-home>	either or both, ok w/ me
 289 19:08:14 <GregNoel>	Steven, your choice
 290 19:08:25 <stevenknight>	i was thinking both might be handy in case someone tries to tackle cygwin before toolchain (or vice versa)
 291 19:08:36 <GregNoel>	done
 292 19:09:15 <GregNoel>	1263?
 293 19:10:38 <stevenknight>	needs to be reproduced, it's been a while
 294 19:10:42 <stevenknight>	i bet it's been fixed since then
 295 19:11:06 <stevenknight>	better if someone else has time, but i'll take it (research) if no one else can
 296 19:11:43 <GregNoel>	Trivial to reproduce; it's using glob.glob() instead of Glob(), so it's in the "wrong" directory the second time through.
 297 19:12:35 <stevenknight>	ah!
 298 19:12:35 <garyo-home>	That's probably right...
 299 19:12:44 <garyo-home>	(actually os.listdir, but same thing)
 300 19:12:51 <stevenknight>	close it out, then, with reference to Glob() ?
 301 19:13:14 <GregNoel>	yup, that's what I said in the spreadsheet...
 302 19:13:16 <garyo-home>	I think so.  OP can reopen if desired (ok, it's 3 yrs old, they won't...)
 303 19:13:35 <GregNoel>	done
 304 19:13:46 <GregNoel>	1268
 305 19:14:08 <stevenknight>	ah, okay, i stopped scrolling down on the spreadsheet
 306 19:14:09 <stevenknight>	1268:
 307 19:14:36 <stevenknight>	agree w/greg:  research, Jim
 308 19:15:07 <garyo-home>	ok, but my quick look says this patch couldn't hurt.
 309 19:15:23 <jtc>	gotta go folks; I'll try to make the next bug party ...
 310 19:15:30 <GregNoel>	Let Jim decide
 311 19:15:32 <garyo-home>	thanks, J.T.!
 312 19:15:35 <stevenknight>	thanks, jtc
 313 19:15:38 <GregNoel>	We'll look for you
 314 19:15:43 <GregNoel>	the more the merrier!
 315 19:16:12 <garyo-home>	re: let jim decide, ok.
 316 19:16:36 <GregNoel>	done
 317 19:16:56 *	jtc has quit ("Quit")
 318 19:17:30 <GregNoel>	1276
 319 19:17:49 <stevenknight>	1276:  kind of hairy and architectural
 320 19:17:57 <stevenknight>	i'm probably the logical assignee, unless someone else wants it
 321 19:17:59 <garyo-home>	1276: I guess Greg's ssheet comment is right.
 322 19:18:00 <stevenknight>	agree w/future
 323 19:18:03 <garyo-home>	future.
 324 19:18:12 <GregNoel>	what priority?
 325 19:18:25 <stevenknight>	p2 sounds right
 326 19:18:32 <GregNoel>	done
 327 19:18:33 <stevenknight>	shorter sk:  agree w/greg  :-)
 328 19:19:31 <GregNoel>	Huh?  Where did I say that?
 329 19:19:47 <stevenknight>	no, i was poking fun at myself
 330 19:20:03 <stevenknight>	the summary of my previous long-windedness was:  I agree w/greg
 331 19:20:19 <GregNoel>	ah
 332 19:20:33 <stevenknight>	1281:  
 333 19:20:56 <stevenknight>	agree we need a Java guru
 334 19:21:20 <GregNoel>	I had no clue with this one, and re-reading it, I still don't
 335 19:21:24 <stevenknight>	if we had one, what priority / timeframe
 336 19:21:35 <stevenknight>	arbitrary:  2.x p3 ?
 337 19:21:42 <garyo-home>	whatever
 338 19:21:58 <stevenknight>	that lets us defer until 1) someone pops up; 2) we get to it eventually
 339 19:21:58 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll go with that
 340 19:22:31 <garyo-home>	1282: is dup of 1268
 341 19:22:41 <garyo-home>	sorry I mean 12385 is dup
 342 19:22:51 <GregNoel>	keep trying
 343 19:22:56 <garyo-home>	sorry, 3rd try: 1285 is dup of 1268
 344 19:23:01 <garyo-home>	yes, that one was right.
 345 19:23:04 <garyo-home>	:-)
 346 19:23:31 <stevenknight>	okay, dup 1268
 347 19:23:40 <GregNoel>	done
 348 19:23:43 <garyo-home>	I just marked it as dup.
 349 19:24:50 <garyo-home>	1287:
 350 19:25:10 <stevenknight>	yow, patch that's been hanging around way too long
 351 19:25:17 <garyo-home>	I think copying the attributes is the right idea.
 352 19:25:25 <stevenknight>	yeah, sounds exactly right
 353 19:25:32 <stevenknight>	shouldn't be too hard to cook up a test case
 354 19:25:43 <stevenknight>	give it to me, p2, 1.2 or 1.x
 355 19:25:44 <stevenknight>	?
 356 19:25:53 <GregNoel>	your choice
 357 19:25:57 <garyo-home>	your choice
 358 19:26:17 <stevenknight>	1.2
 359 19:26:18 <GregNoel>	done
 360 19:26:48 <GregNoel>	1290
 361 19:26:48 <garyo-home>	1290: I think scons used to write the .sconsign incrementally
 362 19:26:58 <garyo-home>	maybe it does again now?
 363 19:27:22 <garyo-home>	Anyway we are better about signal handling so it rarely fails to update the .sconsign
 364 19:27:36 <stevenknight>	yeah, i think we could WONTFIX it
 365 19:27:37 <garyo-home>	I think it's invalid due to better signal handling now
 366 19:27:45 <garyo-home>	WONTFIX is ok
 367 19:27:48 <GregNoel>	done
 368 19:27:52 <stevenknight>	done
 369 19:28:00 <stevenknight>	1293:
 370 19:28:05 <GregNoel>	1293
 371 19:28:41 <stevenknight>	probably research, me again... :-/
 372 19:28:57 <garyo-home>	or me, at least I could try to repro it quickly
 373 19:29:07 <garyo-home>	I have a D drive
 374 19:29:23 <stevenknight>	garyo, go for it
 375 19:29:41 <garyo-home>	ok
 376 19:29:44 <GregNoel>	done (Steven has too many research issues anyway)
 377 19:29:53 <stevenknight>	agreed
 378 19:29:59 <GregNoel>	1211
 379 19:30:11 <GregNoel>	(and this is the last one in this spreadsheet)
 380 19:30:28 <stevenknight>	(yay!)
 381 19:30:52 <stevenknight>	old, seems to be fixed, don't spend time on it, just WORKSFORME and invite re-opening if that's hasty
 382 19:31:05 <garyo-home>	agree w/ both of you.
 383 19:31:06 <GregNoel>	worksforme!
 384 19:31:34 <stevenknight>	excellent work tonight, gents
 385 19:31:39 <garyo-home>	yes
 386 19:31:41 <GregNoel>	OK, we've settled on 17h00 in two weeks?
 387 19:31:50 <stevenknight>	18h30 ?
 388 19:31:54 <GregNoel>	oops, 17h30?
 389 19:32:08 <garyo-home>	I think it was 18h30 PDT
 390 19:32:10 <stevenknight>	18h30 ?
 391 19:32:56 <GregNoel>	Uh, I'll have to scroll back, ah, ok, I was arguing for 17h30, but I guess I kept mistyping it
 392 19:32:58 *	jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1096624847.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #scons
 393 19:33:03 <GregNoel>	Hi, Jim
 394 19:33:14 <garyo-home>	ok, see you then guys.  Hi, Jim!
 395 19:33:30 <GregNoel>	We assigned you a bunch of issues, Jim
 396 19:33:32 <jrandall>	hello - I seem to be somewhat late to the party
 397 19:33:37 <stevenknight>	okay, see you later, gary
 398 19:33:41 <GregNoel>	Yes, just ending
 399 19:33:43 <garyo-home>	l8r
 400 19:33:48 <stevenknight>	hey jim -- better late than never, though
 401 19:33:49 <GregNoel>	g'night
 402 19:34:31 <jrandall>	I'll check the log for the summary.  More quoting stuff?
 403 19:34:38 <stevenknight>	yep
 404 19:35:17 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.3/2008092417]")
 405 19:35:38 <GregNoel>	And there's a comment in the spreadsheet about a possible strategy to deal with quoting
 406 19:35:52 <jrandall>	Nice - I'll check that out right now
 407 19:36:23 <jrandall>	Current issues sheet?
 408 19:37:14 <GregNoel>	no, 2005h2 issue 1268
 409 19:37:20 <jrandall>	Is the intent of scons to expose the host quoting scheme?
 410 19:37:39 <GregNoel>	I'd argue not
 411 19:38:02 <GregNoel>	in fact, I'd suggest using shlex to crack incoming strings
 412 19:39:12 <jrandall>	The "quoting model" was kind of the fundamental question I ran into.
 413 19:39:20 <jrandall>	And was unable to decide which I'd prefer. 
 414 19:39:47 <jrandall>	The "host quoting scheme" seemed to be what I'd naturally assume, but that's tough on the project independance
 415 19:40:44 <GregNoel>	Yes, but there are so many incompatible schemes on DOS, so I'd prefer to pick one that's consistent and just go with it
 416 19:41:13 <GregNoel>	not to mention that Python has built-in support for Bourne-style shell quoting
 417 19:42:25 <jrandall>	So suggestion would be to use bourne-style shell quoting for all scons commands?
 418 19:42:47 <jrandall>	or one scheme, whatever it may be, on all host platforms?
 419 19:43:32 <GregNoel>	we do something similar for ParseConfig; the input is assumed to be GNU-style flags, which are placed in the right variables so they're usually "translated" to the native format
 420 19:44:27 <GregNoel>	not sure I understand your distinction between SCons commands and one scheme for all
 421 19:45:06 <jrandall>	wasn't trying to distinguish - rather tired, and not speaking well :)
 422 19:46:23 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I understand that---I've been getting up at 2am (PDT) the past few days, so this is well past my bedtime...
 423 19:46:24 <jrandall>	two approaches seem to be "crack into tokens, we control the quoting",  or  "foist quoting onto the host platform, never try to bust up strings"
 424 19:46:36 <jrandall>	That's a bit on the early side :)
 425 19:47:11 <jrandall>	The latter seems less fraught with peril, and probably more compatible with existing practice, but not as nice cross-platform
 426 19:47:50 <GregNoel>	It's a long story, but the short is that it's 110+ during the days right now, so we agreed that our contractors could get here at a ghastly hour to start work.
 427 19:48:13 <jrandall>	ouch.
 428 19:48:36 <jrandall>	I'm not sure exactly what 110+ translates to in celsius, but I'm pretty sure it's damn hot :)
 429 19:49:17 <GregNoel>	"less fraught with peril" is my motivation.  I think consistent and predictable is the win here.
 430 19:49:52 <GregNoel>	over 44 degrees
 431 19:50:29 <jrandall>	Aye.   There seems to be an endless supply of quoting issues.   As per the comment on 1268, that pretty much summarizes what needs to be able to be done if subst_list is oging to work
 432 19:50:56 <jrandall>	and if we can't crack into a list of tokens like that, then almost have to not rely on subst_list
 433 19:50:59 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I saw your comment about that, but I haven't looked at it yet
 434 19:51:46 <jrandall>	Part of while tempfilemunge is such a bug magnet is that it's built on subst_list, which likes to bust strings on spaces.
 435 19:52:46 <jrandall>	so it either has to be able to understand quoting or not be used in tempfilemunge.   Some other quoting problems in a similar vein
 436 19:53:21 <jrandall>	it == subst_list in previous sentence :)
 437 19:53:50 <GregNoel>	ambiguity, thy name is pronoun...
 438 19:55:57 <GregNoel>	Anyway, it looks like I have to go; can you drop me a line about this?  I'd like to see if we can come up with a spec to describe it, particularly as we make the move to subprocess, which will make all of the quoting issues go critical again.
 439 19:56:19 <jrandall>	Sure thing.  see you
 440 19:57:19 <GregNoel>	(Subprocess takes a list of strings, which are assumed to be pre-quoted, and figures out how to get them run.  If we can figure out how to create that list of strings, we win big.)
 441 19:57:34 <GregNoel>	Yes, the wife is calling...  cul.
 442 19:57:46 <jrandall>	Hrm, a good reason to stick with the list approach.
 443 19:57:47 <jrandall>	see you.
 444 19:58:39 *	jrandall (n=jim@bas1-london14-1096624847.dsl.bell.ca) has left #scons
 445 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-10-15 (last edited 2008-10-20 08:16:41 by ip68-7-77-81)