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 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)