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 01:54:57 *	nait (i=root@zans.eecs.umich.edu) has joined #scons
   2 17:24:40 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@67.218.109.115) has joined #scons
   3 17:31:08 *	GregNoel just got here; give me a sec
   4 17:31:32 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
   5 17:31:58 *	Azverkan (n=chatzill@99-52-200-251.lightspeed.snjsca.sbcglobal.net) has joined #scons
   6 17:32:06 <stevenknight>	GregNoel:  np, whenever you're ready
   7 17:32:13 <stevenknight>	hey Azverkan
   8 17:32:22 <Azverkan>	hey
   9 17:33:06 <stevenknight>	GregNoel:  you probably saw, I went ahead and updated four of the 2004h2 issues that seemed like no-brainers
  10 17:34:05 <stevenknight>	Azverkan:  hit undo in the spreadsheet, looks like your first "hey" got typed in that window... :-)
  11 17:34:22 <stevenknight>	or at least I assume that's you in the upper-left cell
  12 17:35:32 <GregNoel>	OK, let's start; I'll catch up the rest as we go along
  13 17:35:44 <GregNoel>	1098?
  14 17:36:25 <GregNoel>	Azverkan, unfortunately not; my guess is that 3.0 support will be needed before the end of the year
  15 17:36:54 <Azverkan>	I mean can we make the assumption that unicode will only work in python3
  16 17:37:08 <stevenknight>	I'd be okay with that, myself
  17 17:37:31 <Azverkan>	supporting 2x unicode and 3x uncode in the same codebase seeems non-trivial to me (unless I'm missing something obvious
  18 17:38:23 <GregNoel>	I dunno.  I've been looking at Utils.py a bit and it might be possible
  19 17:38:41 <Azverkan>	the one thing I couldn't figure out was how to handle string literals
  20 17:39:01 <Azverkan>	it seemed like a non-starter but I could be missing the obvious solution
  21 17:39:10 <GregNoel>	On the other hand, I've found a couple of places where manual fixes are currently required.
  22 17:40:29 <stevenknight>	but then again i'm not running into Unicode issues
  23 17:40:29 <stevenknight>	just supporting unicode seems non-trivial to me... :-)
  24 17:40:33 <stevenknight>	Azverkan:  say more, what was the issue there?
  25 17:40:35 <stevenknight>	just the u'' syntax?
  26 17:40:37 <GregNoel>	Still no obvious direction
  27 17:41:00 <stevenknight>	yeah
  28 17:41:11 <Azverkan>	the behavior in 2.x vs 3.x is reversed
  29 17:41:22 <GregNoel>	There's a fixer for the cosmetic update; it's the cases where there's a real semantic difference that are the problem
  30 17:41:55 <stevenknight>	but we don't have to supply identical behavior when run under Python 2.x vs. 3.x
  31 17:42:12 <GregNoel>	huh?
  32 17:42:25 <stevenknight>	i.e., we can't be expect how we interpret a SConscript file to make up for Python changes, can we?
  33 17:42:22 <Azverkan>	it fails at the import level in python sometimes
  34 17:42:28 <nait>	Hey guys.  I've been working with Greg on some of the Fixer issues.  I can chat for a bit.
  35 17:42:38 <stevenknight>	hey nait
  36 17:42:40 <Azverkan>	a file that imports with  2. might throw unicode errors in 3 and vice versa
  37 17:43:23 <stevenknight>	what areas besides string literals is that a problem?
  38 17:44:13 <GregNoel>	Um, user SConscript code is either 2.x or 3.x; when the _user_ upgrades is not our problem.
  39 17:44:28 <Azverkan>	thats the only case I found where you couldn't ljust create 2x and 3x code paths
  40 17:44:34 <stevenknight>	okay
  41 17:44:56 <GregNoel>	Our problem is to be able to more-or-less do the same thing from the same code base, where...
  42 17:45:28 <GregNoel>	we work on the 2.x base and automatically convert it to the 3.x base
  43 17:44:59 <stevenknight>	then I'd be okay with separate 2 vs. 3 modules containing a catalogue of string literals
  44 17:45:14 <stevenknight>	underneath a layer that imports the right set of literals
  45 17:45:41 <stevenknight>	but that's obvious enough that it probably doesn't solve all the problems...  what else?
  46 17:46:15 <GregNoel>	We have some code in strings; the obvious ones being in the test scripts
  47 17:46:40 <stevenknight>	right
  48 17:47:04 <GregNoel>	I can imagine a startup shim that looks at the runtime and either runs 2.x base or 3.x base.
  49 17:47:24 <stevenknight>	agreed
  50 17:47:49 <stevenknight>	so are we morphing into saying that full unicode support only occurs in SCons when run under Python 3.x
  51 17:48:08 <stevenknight>	and turning this into a "how do we support Python 3.x (and keep our development process sane)" problem?
  52 17:48:02 <GregNoel>	But cases like this issue will have to have code that looks dumb but works in both cases
  53 17:48:39 <GregNoel>	by calling a utility function, the same way that the strings transparency it handled now
  54 17:48:41 <stevenknight>	hey, we have the "dumb code" thing down pretty well by now...  :-)
  55 17:49:13 <GregNoel>	{;-}
  56 17:49:26 <Azverkan>	the main problem being that all the shims slowly eat away at performance
  57 17:49:55 <stevenknight>	right, but if it's really mainly string literals, I don't think we have lots of those on critical path
  58 17:50:07 <stevenknight>	unless I'm overlooking something
  59 17:50:17 <Azverkan>	string literials i just the hardest problem to keep 2x and 3x code bases running in sync
  60 17:50:24 <GregNoel>	Yes, but they can go away eventually.  Think of isString() as an example.
  61 17:50:42 <stevenknight>	right
  62 17:50:52 <stevenknight>	so back to this issue...
  63 17:51:17 <Azverkan>	in 2x strings defaultl to ascii and you have to request unicode behavior, in 3x strings are default unicode
  64 17:51:36 <Azverkan>	so in 3x supporting unicode is more or less the "main" path throught he code
  65 17:51:18 <GregNoel>	Azverkan, that's what the fixers do; they automatically converts idioms.  You should be working with us on it...
  66 17:52:02 <Azverkan>	GregNoel: just back from taiwan, you have a branch somewhere/
  67 17:52:24 <GregNoel>	PythonFixers in the wiki
  68 17:52:10 <nait>	I might have missed something.  Do we want unicode with python2.x?
  69 17:53:14 <GregNoel>	nait, I do, for one, but that's gonna take some care
  70 17:52:28 <Azverkan>	supporting unicode in 2x is where the bulk of the work would need to be
  71 17:54:05 <GregNoel>	Azverkan, we already have utilities to make much of it transparent, but it will take some discipline to use them.
  72 17:54:36 <GregNoel>	(Well, not completely transparent, but not intrusive, at least.)
  73 17:55:11 <GregNoel>	But we're getting away from the issue, which is not Unicode transparency.
  74 17:55:38 <GregNoel>	The issue is one where the objects are really from different families.
  75 17:56:22 <GregNoel>	A code object will be `bytes` (not string) and the text will be 'Unicode' (not string)
  76 17:56:41 <GregNoel>	And ne'er the twain shall meet.
  77 17:57:12 <stevenknight>	so...  anyone want to suggest a disposition for 1098?
  78 17:57:36 <GregNoel>	Sigh.  No change from last time.
  79 17:57:43 <Azverkan>	punt until 3.0 support goes in
  80 17:57:44 <stevenknight>	and do we need some concrete next action item here for the larger 2.x => 3.x issue?
  81 17:57:56 <stevenknight>	(i.e. something that's not already part of the Fixer work you're doing?)
  82 17:57:51 <GregNoel>	All I can suggest is a 'unicode' tag and try to look at it later.
  83 17:58:15 <stevenknight>	okay, let's do that and move on
  84 17:58:38 <GregNoel>	OK, yes, I'll take it to the mailing lists
  85 17:58:43 <stevenknight>	thnx
  86 17:59:00 <stevenknight>	1098:  gregnoel to write up for ML, done
  87 17:59:02 <stevenknight>	1107:
  88 17:59:22 <GregNoel>	Steven's comment is still out of date...
  89 17:59:49 <stevenknight>	it is, isn't it
  90 18:00:25 <stevenknight>	okay, updated
  91 18:00:48 <stevenknight>	i'm suggesting 2.x p3
  92 18:00:54 <stevenknight>	hopefully 2.1 since there's a patch
  93 18:01:03 <stevenknight>	but it still needs the usual testing and doc
  94 18:01:15 <GregNoel>	I can't argue against p3, really, but I don't even know what a .pdb file does (and don't care; let's not get off on a side issue)
  95 18:01:22 <stevenknight>	any objections?
  96 18:01:45 <GregNoel>	Seeing none, next.
  97 18:01:56 <stevenknight>	okay
  98 18:01:59 <stevenknight>	1107:  2.x p3 done
  99 18:02:34 *	Azverkan I pray that someday microsoft will delete pdb files from their compiler :)
 100 18:02:02 <stevenknight>	8:
 101 18:03:33 <GregNoel>	Even though there's a common patch, I see them as separate.
 102 18:03:58 <GregNoel>	But I'll go with p3 if others think that's better.
 103 18:04:23 <stevenknight>	GregNoel:  "them" == issues 8 and 1107?
 104 18:04:43 <GregNoel>	stevenknight, yes
 105 18:05:20 <nait>	(s/Options/Variables/ for the latest versions of scons)
 106 18:05:37 <stevenknight>	2.x p3, i can take it if no one else is itching to
 107 18:05:48 <GregNoel>	OK, works for me
 108 18:05:52 <stevenknight>	done
 109 18:06:25 <stevenknight>	2310:
 110 18:06:45 <GregNoel>	2310, looneycyborg got him to use absolute paths.
 111 18:07:02 <stevenknight>	ah
 112 18:07:07 <stevenknight>	yeah, that would work around it
 113 18:07:28 <stevenknight>	does it really seem to you like he was trying to do something that shouldn't work?
 114 18:08:16 <stevenknight>	if so, I'm okay with INVALID
 115 18:08:24 <GregNoel>	I couldn't tell.  There are quite a number of things going on and the SConstruct was just too big to understand.
 116 18:08:27 <Azverkan>	its related to chdir() I think
 117 18:08:36 <stevenknight>	ah, I could see that
 118 18:09:10 <GregNoel>	I asked loony for a smaller test case, and he put it on IRC while I was gone; I haven't looked at it yet
 119 18:09:03 <stevenknight>	okay, how about INVALID with the usual "reopen with a test case if necessary" message
 120 18:09:13 <stevenknight>	he won't, but it might help someone else who stumbles on the issue in the future
 121 18:09:32 <GregNoel>	OK, works, but I'll check the test case before I do
 122 18:09:40 <stevenknight>	done
 123 18:10:02 <stevenknight>	2288:  could use a packaging guru here...
 124 18:10:07 <stevenknight>	and 2289
 125 18:10:19 <nait>	I just looked at it a little bit, and it seems to remind me of a problem I had with my multiple variant stuff that I posted a while ago. Basically, there's only one FS object, but you want two working directories.
 126 18:11:35 <GregNoel>	2289, stevenknight, concur with your comment
 127 18:12:20 <stevenknight>	do we have a likely packaging guru anywhere?  can we ask this guy?
 128 18:12:40 <GregNoel>	nait, still absorbing your statement...
 129 18:13:02 <nait>	greg, I could be wrong, since there's a lot of code there to understand.
 130 18:13:48 <stevenknight>	nait:  I'd like to understand off-line how multiple FS objects might have solved your problem
 131 18:13:59 <GregNoel>	agree
 132 18:14:10 <stevenknight>	can you send me something?
 133 18:14:16 <GregNoel>	cc me?
 134 18:14:32 <Azverkan>	directory globbng is the only issue I'm aware of
 135 18:15:02 <nait>	Actually most of it was in that thread I started a few weeks ago.
 136 18:15:02 <GregNoel>	Yeah, but dir.Glob() mostly works
 137 18:15:26 <GregNoel>	I have an issue on my plate to remove that "mostly" and document it.
 138 18:15:54 <nait>	I'll try to read this code and understand it better before I conclude that my statement has merit.  I was acutally trying to use multiple VarintDir()s at once.  That is definitely not supported.
 139 18:16:05 <nait>	(without extra FS objects being created manually.)
 140 18:16:06 <stevenknight>	nait:   understood
 141 18:16:46 <stevenknight>	extra FS objects probably aren't the ultimate right answer, because it would probably cause other problems in the current architecture
 142 18:16:46 <GregNoel>	Let's close 2289 and leave 2288 for next time.
 143 18:17:13 <stevenknight>	but using it to understand your case from that perspective would be helpful for other design discussions going on
 144 18:17:46 <stevenknight>	so don't hesitate to raise the issue
 145 18:18:00 <stevenknight>	GregNoel:  concur re: 2289 and 2288
 146 18:17:52 <stevenknight>	< 1 minute until my shuttle stop
 147 18:18:03 <GregNoel>	rats...
 148 18:18:06 <stevenknight>	yeah
 149 18:18:13 <GregNoel>	We didn't manage much
 150 18:18:20 <GregNoel>	Maybe tomorrow?
 151 18:18:21 <stevenknight>	yeah, rough set of issues tonight
 152 18:18:24 <stevenknight>	i'm game
 153 18:18:34 <stevenknight>	okay, later
 154 18:18:38 <GregNoel>	bye
 155 18:18:36 *	stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
 156 19:34:58 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 157 

BugParty/IrcLog2009-02-18 (last edited 2009-02-22 19:53:46 by ip68-7-77-81)