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
