1 17:16:22 * GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
2 17:25:49 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@67.218.109.115) has joined #scons
3 17:26:06 <stevenknight> hey nait
4 17:27:16 <stevenknight> hey GregNoel
5 17:29:29 <nait> Unfortunately, I needed to get a ride home today, so I'm going to miss the bug party. I'll try to be around at 8:30 for discussions about fixers and 2.0
6 17:30:08 <stevenknight> okay
7 17:30:19 <GregNoel> I'm here...
8 17:30:23 <stevenknight> i may not be able to connect then
9 17:30:31 <stevenknight> looks like a lot going on this evening...
10 17:31:20 <stevenknight> hi greg
11 17:31:24 <GregNoel> Fair warning: I seem to have caught the bug that the kids have been passing around, so I'm a bit under the weather and liable to be slow tonight.
12 17:31:32 <stevenknight> okay
13 17:31:37 <stevenknight> shall we get started then?
14 17:31:41 <GregNoel> Hi, Steven... and Nate?
15 17:31:54 <stevenknight> nait's here for now but has to leave
16 17:32:09 <stevenknight> no sign of Brandon or Bill
17 17:32:13 <stevenknight> and Gary's still on vacation
18 17:32:38 <GregNoel> So a bit on the thin side.
19 17:32:44 <stevenknight> yeah
20 17:32:58 <stevenknight> but we can still do what we can
21 17:33:04 <GregNoel> yup
22 17:33:06 <stevenknight> and defer as necessary
23 17:33:17 <GregNoel> yup
24 17:33:05 <nait> Yeah, sorry. I don't have a car today, so I'm at the whim of my co-worker.
25 17:33:20 <stevenknight> nait: understood, been there myself
26 17:33:38 <stevenknight> so where did we leave off?
27 17:33:38 <GregNoel> I think 2288 is next; we hadn't finished with it.
28 17:33:49 <stevenknight> right
29 17:34:10 <stevenknight> oh, I thought we agreed right before the end to defer 2288 to next week
30 17:34:12 <stevenknight> and close 2289
31 17:34:35 <GregNoel> I thought we said "next time" but I'm willing to bypass it.
32 17:34:47 <GregNoel> I'll ask for more info
33 17:34:50 <stevenknight> right, meant "next time"
34 17:34:57 <stevenknight> okay, done
35 17:35:22 <stevenknight> 2303: research, me?
36 17:35:24 <GregNoel> 2303, I seem to be collecting the symlink issues
37 17:35:39 <GregNoel> but you're welcome to research it {;-}
38 17:35:41 <stevenknight> er, I meant, research, gregnoel?
39 17:35:44 <stevenknight> :-)
40 17:35:57 <stevenknight> sorry, it's this frog in my throat... :-)
41 17:36:11 <GregNoel> It can't be worse than mine.
42 17:36:34 <stevenknight> if you have other symlink issues then it probably does make more sense with you
43 17:36:55 <GregNoel> This isn't the same as the other issues, which are related to making a symlink a first-class node type
44 17:37:15 <stevenknight> seems like it'd be in the same ballpark, though
45 17:37:32 <stevenknight> if the FS.* hierarchy is going to understand symlinks anyway
46 17:37:45 <GregNoel> OK, I'll research it, but I suspect I'll be tossing it back.
47 17:37:45 <stevenknight> i'm okay with it being your call, though
48 17:37:51 <GregNoel> done
49 17:37:52 <stevenknight> that's fine
50 17:37:53 <stevenknight> done
51 17:37:59 <stevenknight> 2304: research, me?
52 17:38:33 <GregNoel> OK, but you've got to start catching up on those (as do I with mine)
53 17:38:43 <stevenknight> yep, i agree
54 17:39:04 <stevenknight> i'm going to try to make it a priority after landing vs_revamp on the trunk
55 17:39:20 <stevenknight> i have to remember that the idea isn't necessarily to solve them all
56 17:39:28 <stevenknight> but at least characterize them enough to slot them elsewhere...
57 17:39:41 <GregNoel> 2306, sigh, I'll come up with a proposal
58 17:39:41 <stevenknight> anyway
59 17:39:45 <stevenknight> 2304: research, sgk
60 17:39:46 <stevenknight> done
61 17:39:46 <GregNoel> yes, exactly
62 17:39:51 <stevenknight> 2306: research, gregnoel
63 17:39:58 <stevenknight> done
64 17:39:58 <GregNoel> done
65 17:40:18 <GregNoel> 2309, as you request
66 17:40:27 <stevenknight> 2309: 1.3, p2, sk, +vs_revamp
67 17:40:28 <stevenknight> done
68 17:40:51 <stevenknight> 2311
69 17:41:07 <GregNoel> the only one with a consensus...
70 17:41:12 <stevenknight> to do this one right has larger implications about making the Builder (or action) configurable
71 17:41:47 <stevenknight> 2.x p2 feels right
72 17:42:01 <GregNoel> I'd think it would always be rebuilt if a source changes; when would it not?
73 17:42:03 <stevenknight> are we still okay leaving 2.x issues as TBD / future draft pick?
74 17:42:31 <stevenknight> trivial case: your target is built by just concatenating the sources
75 17:42:33 <GregNoel> not 2.x p2; too soon in the future
76 17:42:40 <stevenknight> you don't care about the name change then
77 17:42:57 <stevenknight> but you could argue that we should go ahead and rebuild anyway
78 17:43:19 <stevenknight> on the theory that it's generally safer, and we don't need the extra complexity for the corner case
79 17:43:07 <GregNoel> Yes, you do; the source could have different contents; that's the bug here.
80 17:43:27 <stevenknight> no, the source has the same contents
81 17:43:37 <stevenknight> if the contents are different, then the MD5 checksum difference triggers a rebuild
82 17:43:42 <GregNoel> Not what the bug said, as I recall.
83 17:44:25 <stevenknight> checking now;...
84 17:44:27 <stevenknight> but I doubt it
85 17:45:19 <stevenknight> ouch, you're right
86 17:45:20 <stevenknight> as usual
87 17:45:26 <GregNoel> {;-}
88 17:45:51 <GregNoel> The bug is probably that it's checking the _old_ source, rather than the new one.
89 17:47:40 <stevenknight> ah, yes
90 17:47:48 <stevenknight> very likely
91 17:47:53 <stevenknight> okay, give it to me
92 17:47:57 <GregNoel> done
93 17:49:01 <stevenknight> 2312: 2.x p3 managan
94 17:48:38 <GregNoel> 2312, I agree.
95 17:49:02 <stevenknight> done
96 17:49:03 <GregNoel> 2311, I wish I had some of those drugs right now
97 17:49:41 <stevenknight> 2313: defer to next time and hope someone else comes up with a better idea for tackling packaging issues?
98 17:50:02 <GregNoel> 2312, I'm inclined to close it as invalid: we only support one package per run right now
99 17:50:08 <stevenknight> ah
100 17:50:28 <GregNoel> or wontfix
101 17:50:25 <stevenknight> how about just turn it into a feature request, then?
102 17:50:45 <GregNoel> feature request, hmmm, yeah, makes sense
103 17:50:57 <stevenknight> a packaging system that can't let you build more than one at a time seems pretty limited
104 17:51:22 <stevenknight> so... feature request, 3.x p3?
105 17:51:38 <GregNoel> yeah, sounds right.
106 17:51:39 <stevenknight> and an invitation to scratch the itch sooner if he wants to contribute a patch
107 17:51:47 <GregNoel> good point
108 17:52:24 <stevenknight> done
109 17:52:35 <GregNoel> 2338, 2.1 p4 is fine
110 17:52:45 <stevenknight> done
111 17:52:46 <GregNoel> 2339, ditto
112 17:52:50 <stevenknight> done
113 17:52:52 <stevenknight> gregnoel on both?
114 17:53:16 <GregNoel> Hmmm...
115 17:53:24 <GregNoel> Nate, you still here?
116 17:54:07 <GregNoel> Nate has been working with me on the fixers; this might be in his ballpark
117 17:54:13 <stevenknight> that sounds good
118 17:54:51 <GregNoel> Not to mention I suspect I'll be zoned out when 2.0 is out after supervising all those fixers.
119 17:54:25 <stevenknight> how about putting his name on and you guys can negotiate if that's not okay with him
120 17:54:56 <GregNoel> Yeah, I'll do that.
121 17:55:07 <stevenknight> right re: zoned out
122 17:55:34 <stevenknight> okay, 2338+2339: 2.1 p4 Nate
123 17:55:35 <stevenknight> done
124 17:55:41 <stevenknight> 2346: consensus invalid
125 17:55:53 <GregNoel> 2346, done
126 17:56:15 <stevenknight> 2347: ...
127 17:56:17 <GregNoel> 2347, sk to follow up?
128 17:56:23 <stevenknight> 2.x p3 sk
129 17:56:30 <stevenknight> no
130 17:56:31 <GregNoel> done
131 17:56:32 <stevenknight> research p3 sk
132 17:56:37 <stevenknight> so i'll follow up sooner
133 17:56:52 <GregNoel> better; I agree
134 17:56:56 <stevenknight> done
135 17:57:08 <stevenknight> 2349: anytime p4 gregnoel?
136 17:57:16 <GregNoel> 2349, I guess that's what I get...
137 17:57:22 <stevenknight> :-)
138 17:57:34 <GregNoel> OK, but make it p2
139 17:57:42 <stevenknight> okay
140 17:57:48 <GregNoel> get it out of the way
141 17:57:52 <stevenknight> good point
142 17:57:53 <stevenknight> done
143 17:57:57 <stevenknight> on to 2004h2?
144 17:58:22 <GregNoel> Wow, you updated the spreadsheet that quickly; I can't even navigate today...
145 17:58:54 <stevenknight> small advantage of the laptop, the touchpad keeps the fingers closer to home row...
146 17:59:12 <GregNoel> No quorum for schedule items, so yeah, let's look at a few from 2004
147 17:59:37 <stevenknight> 851: too old to mess with, invalid (or worksforme)
148 18:00:03 <GregNoel> worksforme worksforme
149 18:00:07 <stevenknight> :-)
150 18:00:11 <stevenknight> done
151 18:00:14 <stevenknight> 860: already closed
152 18:00:16 <stevenknight> 863:
153 18:00:34 <stevenknight> agree w/your suggestion of dup'ing these
154 18:00:45 <GregNoel> OK, I'll do it
155 18:00:52 <GregNoel> not tonight, though..
156 18:01:01 <stevenknight> the survivor should be p2 so it stays near top of list, i think
157 18:01:05 <stevenknight> agreed re: not tonight
158 18:01:24 <stevenknight> 914: research
159 18:01:27 <stevenknight> maybe me
160 18:01:37 <stevenknight> fresh eyes would help
161 18:01:49 <stevenknight> but I don't know if anyone else has an itch to scratch re: collecting test results
162 18:02:00 <stevenknight> it's been somewhat superceded by going with Buildbot
163 18:02:14 <GregNoel> somewhat
164 18:03:04 <GregNoel> Buildbot is nice, but I find it limiting; I've wanted to fiddle with it, but I don't have the most-recent stuff
165 18:02:39 <stevenknight> yeah, research sk is the right call here
166 18:03:29 <GregNoel> 914, research is good; close it if it's no help any more
167 18:03:32 <stevenknight> we should chat about Buildbot plans some other time (when you're more up to it)
168 18:03:39 <GregNoel> concur
169 18:03:42 <stevenknight> we're probably going to be doing some buildbot work for the day job
170 18:03:59 <stevenknight> would be nice to do things that benefit us too
171 18:04:11 <GregNoel> true
172 18:04:01 <stevenknight> anyway
173 18:04:13 <stevenknight> 923: 1.3 p3 sk +vs_revamp
174 18:04:52 <GregNoel> 923, done
175 18:04:37 <GregNoel> and don't forget the new Python support systems; they could run buildbots
176 18:04:59 <stevenknight> snakebite or whatever it's called?
177 18:05:08 <GregNoel> yeah, that's it.
178 18:05:24 <stevenknight> yeah, definitely worth keeping in mind
179 18:05:38 <stevenknight> especially if it helps with Windows and non-POSIXy platforms
180 18:05:44 <stevenknight> 924: already closed
181 18:05:57 <stevenknight> 939: already closed
182 18:06:06 <GregNoel> 947, needs to be someone with a DOS box
183 18:06:12 <GregNoel> Maybe Gary?
184 18:06:34 <stevenknight> is it high enough priority?
185 18:06:40 <stevenknight> since his time is limited..
186 18:06:54 <stevenknight> sure
187 18:06:58 <stevenknight> let's assign to gary
188 18:07:12 <stevenknight> and invite negotiation if he wants to throw it back
189 18:07:24 <GregNoel> good; milestone and priority?
190 18:07:31 <stevenknight> anytime, p2?
191 18:07:35 <stevenknight> p2 to get it out of the way
192 18:07:44 <GregNoel> done {;-}
193 18:08:01 <stevenknight> done
194 18:08:13 <stevenknight> 960: 3.x p[34]?
195 18:08:19 <stevenknight> do we want a separate doc issue, too?
196 18:08:30 <GregNoel> I like your comment; p4 it is.
197 18:08:39 <stevenknight> okay
198 18:09:01 <stevenknight> done
199 18:09:15 <stevenknight> 961: okay with 2.x p3?
200 18:09:25 <stevenknight> 3.x feels too far out for some useful functionality
201 18:09:51 <GregNoel> Yeah, you make a good point in your comment. How about 2.x p4?
202 18:09:58 <stevenknight> done
203 18:10:24 <stevenknight> 977: research? who?
204 18:10:40 <GregNoel> 977, the wiki page is out, but few review comments... (hint, hint)
205 18:11:04 <stevenknight> fair point
206 18:11:14 <stevenknight> give 977 to me, then
207 18:11:32 <stevenknight> so i'll have a reminder to comment if i haven't done so by the time I try to clear my research pile
208 18:11:47 <stevenknight> 977: research, sk
209 18:11:48 <GregNoel> OK; this one is an old issue, mind, so it may be moot by now
210 18:11:53 <GregNoel> done
211 18:11:55 <stevenknight> right
212 18:11:59 <stevenknight> 982: already closed
213 18:12:24 <stevenknight> 988: consensus invalid
214 18:12:31 <GregNoel> done
215 18:12:46 <stevenknight> 993: 1.3 p2 sk, +vs_revamp
216 18:12:56 <GregNoel> done
217 18:13:13 <stevenknight> 1003: consensus invalid
218 18:13:13 <GregNoel> 1003, invalid
219 18:13:18 <GregNoel> done
220 18:13:33 <stevenknight> 1012: consensus 3.x p3
221 18:14:02 <GregNoel> 1012, yes, with your ammendment
222 18:14:21 <stevenknight> 1017: consensus invalid
223 18:14:22 <GregNoel> 1017, invalid
224 18:14:42 <GregNoel> done
225 18:14:46 <stevenknight> 1019: 2.x p3 sk?
226 18:15:07 * GregNoel is still reading the comment
227 18:15:45 <stevenknight> np
228 18:16:02 <GregNoel> OK, your funeral; done
229 18:16:16 <stevenknight> :-)
230 18:16:43 <stevenknight> 1033: 3.x, p[your call], +TaskmasterNG
231 18:16:53 <GregNoel> done
232 18:17:26 <GregNoel> (I think I'll make it p2 to keep it above the herd)
233 18:17:41 <stevenknight> sounds good
234 18:17:48 <stevenknight> and we're just coming to the exit for my stop
235 18:17:53 <stevenknight> excellent work tonight
236 18:18:03 <stevenknight> many thanks, especially given how you're feeling
237 18:18:20 <GregNoel> good timing; and I'm starting to sweat, so maybe the fever is breaking.
238 18:18:28 <GregNoel> Good time to quit
239 18:18:31 <stevenknight> yep
240 18:18:39 <GregNoel> OK, cul, and thanks.
241 18:18:45 <stevenknight> and you
242 18:18:46 <stevenknight> later
243 18:18:50 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
244 21:12:03 * GregNoel has been marked as being away
245
