1 17:24:12 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209.6.158.38) has joined #scons
   2 17:24:42 <garyo-home>	Hi Greg.
   3 17:27:55 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-93de785fa2957b48) has joined #scons
   4 17:28:18 <garyo-home>	Hi, Steven.
   5 17:28:24 <stevenknight>	hey garyo
   6 17:28:38 *	Greg_Noel just got here
   7 17:28:46 <Greg_Noel>	Hi, all...
   8 17:28:51 <stevenknight>	hi greg
   9 17:29:20 <Greg_Noel>	Give me a chance to set up...
  10 17:29:26 <garyo-home>	Hi Greg.
  11 17:34:58 <Greg_Noel>	I'm ready; shall we proceed?
  12 17:35:32 <garyo-home>	yes, let's start.
  13 17:35:39 <stevenknight>	all right then...
  14 17:35:53 <garyo-home>	1895 consensus
  15 17:36:02 <garyo-home>	2127 consensus
  16 17:36:06 <Greg_Noel>	1895 and 2127 look like consensus
  17 17:36:37 <garyo-home>	2248: I say maybe invalid due to vs_revamp.
  18 17:36:46 <Greg_Noel>	I'll go with research, David
  19 17:36:50 <stevenknight>	yes, vs_revamp should take care of it
  20 17:37:00 <stevenknight>	probably nicer to the user to close as FIXED by vs_revamp, though
  21 17:37:09 <garyo-home>	q: when should we integrate vs_revamp?  (Steven: yes, good idea)
  22 17:37:51 <stevenknight>	how about right after 1.2?
  23 17:37:56 <Greg_Noel>	Can't close it until there's a fix in place; bad practice
  24 17:37:57 <stevenknight>	(which we should discuss)
  25 17:38:12 <stevenknight>	greg:  right, sorry I meant after vs_revamp is integrated
  26 17:38:24 <garyo-home>	steven: sounds good.
  27 17:38:41 <stevenknight>	okay, so mark this 1.3 p3 keyword 'vs_revamp' ?
  28 17:38:48 <garyo-home>	ok\
  29 17:38:50 <Greg_Noel>	ok, 1.3, p?, who?
  30 17:39:13 <Greg_Noel>	p3 is ok
  31 17:39:16 <garyo-home>	I'll do it, it's only closing the bug when vs_revamp is in.
  32 17:39:20 <Greg_Noel>	done
  33 17:39:57 <garyo-home>	2250?
  34 17:40:25 <stevenknight>	probably end up with me
  35 17:40:32 <Greg_Noel>	Wide range of opinion...
  36 17:40:41 <stevenknight>	how about 1.3 p3?  (or p4?)
  37 17:41:05 <garyo-home>	I'd prefer 2.x, there's too much going on already.
  38 17:41:17 <stevenknight>	i can go with 2.x
  39 17:41:30 <Greg_Noel>	I still think that a revamp of Configure, which would take over the functionality of not only Configure, but also Option/Variable and other stuff (including getting options from the shell environment), is the right strategy, but as a short term hack, I can agree with a convenience function
  40 17:43:09 <garyo-home>	Good.
  41 17:43:37 <Greg_Noel>	ok, 2.x, p?, steven?
  42 17:43:43 <garyo-home>	2.x p3 steven
  43 17:44:13 <Greg_Noel>	I could also go with p4, not as important as other things.
  44 17:44:24 <garyo-home>	either way's ok w/ me
  45 17:44:36 <Greg_Noel>	Steven?  You're the deciding vote.
  46 17:44:39 <garyo-home>	p4 maybe better
  47 17:44:57 <stevenknight>	sorry, distracted -- i just broke the chrome build... :-/
  48 17:45:11 <Greg_Noel>	Naughty, naughty...
  49 17:45:18 <garyo-home>	can we help? :-)
  50 17:45:14 <stevenknight>	2.x p3 me
  51 17:45:20 <Greg_Noel>	done
  52 17:45:24 <garyo-home>	2251: threading issues are hard
  53 17:45:39 <garyo-home>	... to test, at least
  54 17:45:50 <stevenknight>	yeah, and I'm far from a threading guru
  55 17:46:10 <stevenknight>	but I'm starting to rope more people here into issues like this...
  56 17:46:44 <Greg_Noel>	Well, I've been one in the past, but it's nasty work.
  57 17:46:48 <garyo-home>	in this case though it seems likely to be something like that, so I'd vote for something that "ought to fix it" even w/o a hard testcase; the testcase should just exercise it a bit.
  58 17:47:03 <Greg_Noel>	garyo-home, agree
  59 17:47:05 <stevenknight>	garyo-home:  agreed, i'll take that approach
  60 17:47:29 <garyo-home>	ok, 1.x p3 steven?
  61 17:47:35 <stevenknight>	done
  62 17:47:48 <stevenknight>	oh, wait, we were saying 2.x, yes?
  63 17:47:50 <Greg_Noel>	We don't have a model for making (and keeping) SCons thread-safe and we should.  Right now, it's completely ad-hoc and we've been pretty lucky that so few issues have surfaced.  How should we go about developing a model, including possible thread locks?
  64 17:48:20 <garyo-home>	Greg: without redesigning it for safety?  Nearly impossible.
  65 17:48:24 <stevenknight>	Greg_Noel, good point, excellent question, I have no idea
  66 17:49:03 <garyo-home>	Greg: but thinking about it and discussing it and a few well-placed comments won't hurt :-)
  67 17:49:08 <Greg_Noel>	Yeah, but an idea about where to go from here is needed; for example, should this issue have been fixed with a lock rather than a delayed-action flag?  No model, so we're working in the dark.
  68 17:49:44 <garyo-home>	I agree.
  69 17:50:01 <stevenknight>	okay, how about a TASK in the tracker to come up with a model?
  70 17:50:14 <stevenknight>	or define it, really
  71 17:50:15 <garyo-home>	But we do have a *basic* model about when threads are created etc.
  72 17:50:18 <stevenknight>	at least we track the issue
  73 17:50:24 <Greg_Noel>	I'll go for that, but you can't put multiple people on a task.
  74 17:50:25 <garyo-home>	steven: can't hurt.
  75 17:50:41 <garyo-home>	wiki page in the design doc section?
  76 17:50:48 <Greg_Noel>	good idea
  77 17:50:48 <stevenknight>	mark it something like 2.0, and either Greg (if you want to drive it) or me (if we want it to lie fallow for a good long while... :-))
  78 17:50:58 <stevenknight>	wiki page ++
  79 17:51:04 <Greg_Noel>	{;-} I'll drive it, then
  80 17:51:15 <garyo-home>	great!
  81 17:51:19 <stevenknight>	cool, thanks
  82 17:51:55 <Greg_Noel>	OK, what did we decide for 2151?
  83 17:52:16 <stevenknight>	2.x p3 stevenknight
  84 17:52:22 <Greg_Noel>	done
  85 17:52:26 <garyo-home>	good
  86 17:52:28 <stevenknight>	and a new TASK for the larger issue of a coherent thread model
  87 17:52:31 <Greg_Noel>	yes
  88 17:52:53 <Greg_Noel>	"coherent" ==> good word
  89 17:52:46 <garyo-home>	2252: trivial fix
  90 17:52:53 <stevenknight>	2252:  consensus
  91 17:52:55 <stevenknight>	2253:  moot
  92 17:53:09 <stevenknight>	2254:  consensus
  93 17:53:44 <garyo-home>	2255: Greg, can you go w/ Steven's idea?
  94 17:53:51 <stevenknight>	2255:  consensus except for Greg -- you okay with the proposal on the table?
  95 17:54:10 *	Greg_Noel still catching up; hadn't read all the new comments before
  96 17:55:27 <Greg_Noel>	Yes, add compat layer; only the one is needed post 2.0, but the other is, ah, problematic.
  97 17:55:58 <garyo-home>	how?
  98 17:56:34 <Greg_Noel>	no Python support to get the needed information
  99 17:57:03 <garyo-home>	Could it be made to be a noop on old pythons or something?
 100 17:57:42 <stevenknight>	if it's a real problem, i'll do something like that rather than spend huge amounts of time on it
 101 17:57:53 <stevenknight>	hopefully 1.5.2 support only lives for another couple months anyway
 102 17:57:58 <garyo-home>	right.
 103 17:58:31 <Greg_Noel>	Are you suggesting that we add a new get_text_contents?  I'm not sure I like that solution, unless it becomes a noop on systems that don't need it (memory impact)
 104 17:58:59 <stevenknight>	???  i don't think it should be, IIRC how it was implemented
 105 17:59:12 <stevenknight>	it's not going to hang on to the decoded text
 106 17:59:33 <Greg_Noel>	I'm not so sure...
 107 18:00:12 <Greg_Noel>	how about research rather than committing to a fixed release?
 108 18:00:31 <Greg_Noel>	and bring it back to triage when there's more information?
 109 18:00:53 <garyo-home>	Not sure what that more information would be.  Whether it would be a memory hog?
 110 18:00:57 <stevenknight>	well, i can live that, i guess
 111 18:01:08 <stevenknight>	if you specify what information you're looking for, i'll bring it back
 112 18:01:17 <garyo-home>	I think there's no system on which it's not needed.
 113 18:01:58 <Greg_Noel>	Where/how get_text_contents would be used, whether text would be saved/cached, that sort of thing.  I18n text is expensive.
 114 18:02:50 <garyo-home>	It would be used in scanners.  Any utf-8 source code could have this problem.
 115 18:03:02 <stevenknight>	just checked the code, the text is not saved/cached
 116 18:03:14 <stevenknight>	it's decoded by the scanners as needed
 117 18:03:16 <garyo-home>	But I get the point that it takes more memory.
 118 18:03:43 <Greg_Noel>	OK, maybe I'm being stubborn.  "Memory is infinite and free", right?
 119 18:03:49 <garyo-home>	If you had a monster utf-8 resource file (e.g.) it could take 2x the storage to get its text contents.  I don't think that's a problem.
 120 18:03:56 <Greg_Noel>	4x.
 121 18:04:10 <garyo-home>	true, up to 4x depending.
 122 18:04:21 <stevenknight>	sure, but only while scanning
 123 18:04:24 <garyo-home>	(or is python always 4x internally?)
 124 18:04:29 <stevenknight>	and the alternative is SCons doesn't work at all for you
 125 18:04:33 <garyo-home>	yes, only during the scan, then it's gone.
 126 18:04:52 <garyo-home>	Steven, I basically agree, this is needed.  Just want to tease out all the implications.
 127 18:04:55 <Greg_Noel>	(Python always uses 4x on all platforms now)
 128 18:05:00 <stevenknight>	okay
 129 18:05:41 <Greg_Noel>	I'll go with what you two decide.
 130 18:05:59 <garyo-home>	Doesn't seem like memory usage would be a huge problem.  I vote for implementing it and testing it on a couple of large builds; we have mem test infrastructure now.
 131 18:06:11 <Greg_Noel>	OK, that works,
 132 18:07:01 <garyo-home>	2255: 1.x p2 steven then?
 133 18:07:05 <stevenknight>	done
 134 18:07:08 <Greg_Noel>	done
 135 18:07:19 <stevenknight>	2256 & 2257:  consensus David, 1.3 p3 ?
 136 18:07:25 <garyo-home>	yup
 137 18:07:46 <garyo-home>	2258: invalid
 138 18:07:57 <Greg_Noel>	done
 139 18:08:13 <garyo-home>	2259 consensus (I'd like this too)
 140 18:08:48 <Greg_Noel>	done
 141 18:09:02 <stevenknight>	2260 consensus invalid
 142 18:09:11 <garyo-home>	2260: I feel like it's too "interesting" to just mark it invalid somehow.
 143 18:09:28 <stevenknight>	future?
 144 18:09:28 <garyo-home>	future?
 145 18:09:31 <garyo-home>	:-)
 146 18:09:40 <Greg_Noel>	What does Clean() do on a directory?  We may already have a fix.
 147 18:09:58 <garyo-home>	Good question.
 148 18:10:03 <garyo-home>	research, then?
 149 18:10:14 <Greg_Noel>	ok, research, who?
 150 18:10:37 <garyo-home>	I'd love to but I am overcommitted.
 151 18:11:28 <Greg_Noel>	I can check on Clean(), but I have personal stuff coming up, so my time will be limited over the next couple of months
 152 18:12:36 <Greg_Noel>	Did we lose Steven again?
 153 18:12:49 <garyo-home>	maybe he just doesn't want it either :-~
 154 18:13:03 <Greg_Noel>	Or he could have broken another build...
 155 18:13:12 <garyo-home>	maybe.
 156 18:13:45 <stevenknight>	yep, broke it again
 157 18:13:46 <Greg_Noel>	Let's make it research, me, and I'll toss it back if Clean() won't work.
 158 18:13:53 <garyo-home>	ok.
 159 18:14:04 <garyo-home>	and then we'll mark it future.
 160 18:14:08 <stevenknight>	i'm pretty sure Clean() does it
 161 18:14:09 <garyo-home>	thanks!
 162 18:14:16 <stevenknight>	agreed, thanks for taking it
 163 18:14:38 <garyo-home>	So, discuss 1.2 plans?
 164 18:14:47 <stevenknight>	done with that spreadsheet; spend a little time on editlist2005q2?
 165 18:14:48 <Greg_Noel>	That concludes this spreadsheet, should we go on?  Or do you need to pay attention to your build, Steven?
 166 18:14:51 <stevenknight>	oh, 1.2 better
 167 18:15:06 <stevenknight>	i have to wait for my second fix to build anyway...
 168 18:16:09 <garyo-home>	btw, Greg, have you noticed some decay in the BugParty page?
 169 18:16:18 <stevenknight>	1.2 is overdue, so my inclination is to get a candidate out there
 170 18:16:18 <Greg_Noel>	1.2 is due out 24 Nov
 171 18:16:30 <stevenknight>	right, sorry, candidate at least is overdue
 172 18:16:35 <stevenknight>	i only sent out the one checkpoint so far
 173 18:16:36 <Greg_Noel>	what decay?
 174 18:16:57 <garyo-home>	Check it out.  Words with missing parts, damaged lists...
 175 18:18:18 <garyo-home>	steven: 1.2 candidate any time is fine w/ me.  I only wish I had more time to get my fixes in.
 176 18:18:24 <stevenknight>	me too
 177 18:18:28 <Greg_Noel>	also
 178 18:18:48 <stevenknight>	the big thing I'd *like* to get in is a performance improvement I've been working on for folks here
 179 18:19:05 <stevenknight>	it changes the LIBPATH / CPPPATH search from linear (for each .h file for each .o file)
 180 18:19:13 <stevenknight>	to O(1) by collapsing the directories into a lookup dictionary
 181 18:19:36 <garyo-home>	That sounds good.
 182 18:19:39 <stevenknight>	one of our libraries (from an upstream project) has literally ~80 directories in CPPPATH
 183 18:19:49 <stevenknight>	and we use Repository() to multiply that x3
 184 18:20:00 <stevenknight>	it cut the SCons overhead literally in half
 185 18:20:09 <garyo-home>	amazing.
 186 18:20:24 <garyo-home>	Were you also looking at a quoting issue?
 187 18:20:33 <stevenknight>	yes
 188 18:20:42 <stevenknight>	actually, string substitution in general
 189 18:20:54 <stevenknight>	but it dovetails with the quoting for command execution
 190 18:20:57 <garyo-home>	Ah, right.
 191 18:21:32 <Greg_Noel>	(Gary, I see it, it must be recent, I'll check into it.)
 192 18:22:04 <garyo-home>	So is 1.2 still possible on 11/24?
 193 18:22:17 <stevenknight>	in its more-or-less current state, yes
 194 18:22:23 <Greg_Noel>	How big is the change?  Should it be kept for a checkpoint post-1.2?
 195 18:22:31 <stevenknight>	probably post 1.2
 196 18:22:46 <stevenknight>	it moves a bunch of scanning logic from the Node class into the Scanner proper
 197 18:23:00 <stevenknight>	so it's potentially impactive and needs some baking time
 198 18:23:15 <stevenknight>	actually, Gary, you could try giving it a sanity check if you want
 199 18:23:24 <stevenknight>	its in branches/sgk_PathList
 200 18:23:24 <garyo-home>	In that case, and given vs_revamp, the sooner we get 1.2 out the sooner both those changes can move into being testable
 201 18:23:35 <Greg_Noel>	concur
 202 18:23:33 <garyo-home>	steven: I'll try it out this week.
 203 18:23:40 <stevenknight>	should be able to point to bootstrap.py
 204 18:23:45 <stevenknight>	okay, that makes sense
 205 18:23:57 <stevenknight>	i'll go ahead and work on the candidate checkpoint after we're done
 206 18:24:04 <stevenknight>	i should have some downtime in between breaking builds...
 207 18:24:14 <garyo-home>	:-/
 208 18:24:14 <Greg_Noel>	{;-}
 209 18:24:12 <stevenknight>	and then ship 1.2 next week
 210 18:24:22 <garyo-home>	sounds good.
 211 18:24:22 <Greg_Noel>	works for me
 212 18:25:23 <stevenknight>	okay, then
 213 18:25:28 <Greg_Noel>	(Uh, wow, maybe it's Moin; I've got some other pages with lists that are broken...)
 214 18:25:52 <garyo-home>	I think that page has had minor damage for quite a while, but it just got a lot worse.
 215 18:25:46 <stevenknight>	any cycles to look at a few 2005q2 bugs, or do we need to wind down?
 216 18:26:00 <garyo-home>	I can do a few, Steven.
 217 18:26:07 <Greg_Noel>	I've got time
 218 18:27:05 <stevenknight>	okay, 1136:
 219 18:27:09 <stevenknight>	consensus 1.x p3 stevenknight
 220 18:27:19 <garyo-home>	ok
 221 18:27:27 <Greg_Noel>	done
 222 18:27:43 <garyo-home>	1140: could Ignore() help here?
 223 18:28:11 <Greg_Noel>	Probably not; you want the dependency
 224 18:28:29 <stevenknight>	but you can't have that dependency without making a cycle
 225 18:28:37 <stevenknight>	it needs to be broken one way or another...
 226 18:28:41 <Greg_Noel>	I've had to create fake dependencies to deal with it in the past
 227 18:28:56 <Greg_Noel>	That works, but it's a hassle
 228 18:29:09 <garyo-home>	You basically want the file to depend on all the other files in the dir except itself, right?
 229 18:29:23 <Greg_Noel>	yes, recursively
 230 18:29:26 <stevenknight>	off the top of my head, that sounds right
 231 18:29:29 <garyo-home>	eek!
 232 18:29:57 <garyo-home>	ok, I don't know why this is useful but still sounds like you could make the file depend on the dir and then use Ignore (?)
 233 18:30:17 <garyo-home>	But I haven't thought about it a lot so feel free to Ignore me :-)
 234 18:30:47 <Greg_Noel>	garyo-home, bad pun!  I like it!
 235 18:30:18 <Greg_Noel>	The thing with using Glob() for dependencies that Ludwig is working on would solve it, but I don't know if he can do it.
 236 18:31:24 <stevenknight>	so someone research this for a good solution?
 237 18:31:37 <Greg_Noel>	maybe Ludwig?
 238 18:31:51 <stevenknight>	if we go with Ignore(), it should at least be documented as the recommended pattern
 239 18:32:22 <Greg_Noel>	Ignore is applied after dependencies; there's still a loop.
 240 18:33:57 <Greg_Noel>	(Silence while we contemplate.)
 241 18:34:31 <stevenknight>	well, it sounds like a research for someone
 242 18:34:39 <stevenknight>	to either find the right code fix or the right doc fix
 243 18:35:29 <Greg_Noel>	Let's see if Ludwig is willing.
 244 18:36:08 <stevenknight>	okay, sounds good to me
 245 18:36:26 <stevenknight>	1140:  resesarch, Ludwig
 246 18:36:27 <Greg_Noel>	Gary, you OK with that?
 247 18:36:37 <garyo-home>	yes
 248 18:36:40 <Greg_Noel>	done
 249 18:36:48 <stevenknight>	1142:  FIXED, ludwig
 250 18:36:52 <Greg_Noel>	done
 251 18:37:30 <stevenknight>	1143:  2.x p4 steveknight?
 252 18:37:44 <Greg_Noel>	1143, don't use FilterOut; I've got an enhancement with that name on it
 253 18:37:47 <garyo-home>	sure!
 254 18:37:58 <Greg_Noel>	done
 255 18:37:59 <stevenknight>	okay, i prefer env.Remove() myself anyway
 256 18:38:03 <garyo-home>	me too
 257 18:38:07 <stevenknight>	parallel with list.append => env.Append(), etc.
 258 18:38:51 <stevenknight>	1152:  gary, you filed it, so your 2.x p3 trumps
 259 18:39:05 <garyo-home>	1152: sure, count me in.
 260 18:39:10 <Greg_Noel>	works for me
 261 18:39:18 <stevenknight>	1152:  2.x, p3, garyo
 262 18:39:18 <stevenknight>	done
 263 18:39:36 <stevenknight>	1161:  2.x p2 gregnoel ?
 264 18:40:13 <Greg_Noel>	OK, although I'm going to have to digest Steven's comment...
 265 18:40:45 <stevenknight>	nah, just spit it back up -- i'm blathering on like i usually do
 266 18:40:44 <garyo-home>	Greg: by proxy wrappers you're thinking about -Bstatic/-Bdynamic, right?  In which case I agree, this is the same.
 267 18:41:06 <stevenknight>	i don't think my comment adds any real value
 268 18:41:27 <Greg_Noel>	yes, Bstatic() and Bdynamic() proxy wrappers
 269 18:42:27 <garyo-home>	I like tags better than proxy wrappers but if you're implementing it, you choose.
 270 18:42:55 <Greg_Noel>	This case needs to return a list, so it needs some sort of wrapper
 271 18:43:24 <Greg_Noel>	I'll come up with a proposal, then re-triage it
 272 18:43:27 <garyo-home>	I see your point, otherwise something else has to collect the tagged libs, and that gets hairy
 273 18:43:49 <garyo-home>	OK, greg re-triage w/ proposal
 274 18:44:50 <stevenknight>	done
 275 18:45:00 <Greg_Noel>	1164, looks like the consensus is future
 276 18:45:11 <stevenknight>	works for me
 277 18:45:14 <stevenknight>	1164:  future, p4?
 278 18:45:18 <Greg_Noel>	done
 279 18:45:20 <garyo-home>	yes
 280 18:45:31 <stevenknight>	1166:  shall we just put it in to get it off the plate?
 281 18:45:48 <stevenknight>	we've been kind of doing that for other tools with small user bases
 282 18:45:56 <Greg_Noel>	I don't use it, so that's fine with me
 283 18:45:58 <garyo-home>	I think there's another bcc ticket lying around, hang on
 284 18:46:45 <garyo-home>	yes, there are a few actually.
 285 18:46:59 <Greg_Noel>	The -e$TARGET should be first, if the command accepts that, to be consistent with other builders.
 286 18:47:32 <garyo-home>	I did 2163 already, so why don't I do 1166 (blind)
 287 18:47:41 <stevenknight>	gregnoel:  agreed
 288 18:47:47 <Greg_Noel>	done
 289 18:47:53 <stevenknight>	garyo:  thanks:  2163:  anytime garyo
 290 18:48:02 <Greg_Noel>	yes, anytime
 291 18:48:10 <stevenknight>	er, 1166:  anytime garyo
 292 18:48:20 <garyo-home>	sure.  Also I have 2164 but never got any response from the OP.
 293 18:48:24 <garyo-home>	Maybe he's moved on.
 294 18:48:41 <stevenknight>	seems likely
 295 18:48:48 <stevenknight>	1170:  consensus research, david
 296 18:49:18 <Greg_Noel>	done
 297 18:49:38 <garyo-home>	yes
 298 18:50:03 <Greg_Noel>	1175, another blind change for Gary?
 299 18:50:12 <garyo-home>	oh joy
 300 18:50:15 <garyo-home>	sure, why not.
 301 18:50:22 <garyo-home>	i'm brave
 302 18:50:31 <Greg_Noel>	done
 303 18:51:10 <garyo-home>	1176: agree w/ Greg
 304 18:51:32 <stevenknight>	1176:  agree
 305 18:51:40 <Greg_Noel>	done
 306 18:52:00 <stevenknight>	3:  greg filed it, has it been fixed?
 307 18:52:29 <Greg_Noel>	damifino, I used a workaround
 308 18:52:06 <stevenknight>	i think you're right about gary working on it since then
 309 18:52:40 <garyo-home>	I did clean it up a lot.  I seem to remember I was skeptical about changing the existing behavior though.  Anyway I'll look at it again.
 310 18:52:57 <Greg_Noel>	anytime, garyo?
 311 18:53:15 <Greg_Noel>	or is research better?
 312 18:53:20 <garyo-home>	Would you all be in favor of changing the behavior?  Would cause rebuilds...
 313 18:53:36 *	Greg_Noel has his hand up
 314 18:53:41 <garyo-home>	call it research.  Need to see if this case works or not.
 315 18:54:10 <garyo-home>	I'd rather it be changed too.
 316 18:54:12 <Greg_Noel>	Rebuilds would be very rare...
 317 18:54:43 <Greg_Noel>	You OK with that, Steven?  Or did the build break again?
 318 18:55:00 <garyo-home>	And one more q: if you append [1, 2, 1], should it append 1,2 or 2,1?
 319 18:55:26 <Greg_Noel>	You added the option, follow the option.
 320 18:55:44 <garyo-home>	That makes sense
 321 18:55:51 <stevenknight>	build break
 322 18:56:13 <garyo-home>	It's about time for me to go anyway.
 323 18:56:34 <stevenknight>	i'm okay with changing behavior if the new is better, and we have a reasonable path
 324 18:56:44 <garyo-home>	ok
 325 18:56:48 <stevenknight>	so 3:  research, garyo
 326 18:56:55 <Greg_Noel>	done
 327 18:57:09 <stevenknight>	last parting shot:  1180:  1.x, p3, me
 328 18:57:16 <stevenknight>	it's a definite problem, we leak tmp*.lnk files
 329 18:57:24 <Greg_Noel>	I should go soon as well...
 330 18:57:32 <Greg_Noel>	1180, done
 331 18:57:37 <garyo-home>	ok, thanks all!
 332 18:57:38 <stevenknight>	sometimes SCons slows down because of huge numbers of leaked files in /tmp or %TMPDIR%
 333 18:57:43 <stevenknight>	all right, good progress
 334 18:57:46 <stevenknight>	many thanks, guys
 335 18:57:53 <Greg_Noel>	er, 1182, David?
 336 18:58:05 <stevenknight>	1182 david, yes
 337 18:58:11 <garyo-home>	ok
 338 18:58:12 <stevenknight>	they're like potato chips!
 339 18:58:16 <garyo-home>	2 weeks from now, right?
 340 18:58:21 <stevenknight>	yes, two weeks
 341 18:58:26 <Greg_Noel>	The rest next time, yes, two weeks, after Thanksgiving.
 342 18:58:27 <stevenknight>	have a good turkey day
 343 18:58:39 <garyo-home>	ok, I'll see you then.  Happy Thanksgiving!
 344 18:58:40 <Greg_Noel>	same to you guys
 345 18:58:45 <Greg_Noel>	cul
 346 18:58:49 <garyo-home>	bye
 347 18:58:50 <stevenknight>	l8r
 348 18:58:52 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@nat/google/x-93de785fa2957b48) has left #scons ("Leaving")
 349 18:58:56 *	Greg_Noel goes for dinner
 350 18:59:00 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.4/2008102920]")
 351 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-11-19 (last edited 2008-11-20 12:34:09 by ip68-7-77-81)