1 16:41:57 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   2 16:50:31 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@c-67-164-61-68.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
   3 16:51:41 <garyo-home>	Hi Steven; how's things?
   4 16:54:35 <stevenknight>	hey gary -- too much going on, as usual, but okay
   5 16:54:36 <stevenknight>	you?
   6 16:54:41 <garyo-home>	about the same.
   7 16:57:04 *	stevenknight tries to catch up on the spreadsheet
   8 16:58:49 *	garyo-home is doing the same
   9 17:01:11 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
  10 17:01:06 <GregNoel>	Looks like there are at least three of us tonight...
  11 17:01:54 <GregNoel>	As I said in my email, I can only stay a half-hour, so we should get started.
  12 17:02:16 <garyo-home>	ok, fine w/ me.  I think someone is coming later too.
  13 17:02:31 *	bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-3-224.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
  14 17:02:33 <garyo-home>	2426 is the first...
  15 17:02:42 <garyo-home>	Hi Bill!
  16 17:03:07 <bdbaddog>	Hi
  17 17:03:14 <garyo-home>	Looking at 2426.
  18 17:03:45 <garyo-home>	I don't think tool*chain* redesign will help this issue particularly, I vote to put something reasonable in for 3.x.
  19 17:03:51 <GregNoel>	I still think it's invalid, and if we want an issue to make it configurable, we should add a new one.
  20 17:04:24 <garyo-home>	I'd be OK with that, but it'll be pretty similar to this one.
  21 17:04:28 <GregNoel>	but I'll go for 3.x with a change of subject
  22 17:04:34 <bdbaddog>	3.x
  23 17:04:39 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me.
  24 17:04:58 <GregNoel>	done, unless Steven has something
  25 17:05:13 <GregNoel>	(He's the other "invalid" vote)
  26 17:05:03 <stevenknight>	2426 is invalid
  27 17:05:10 <stevenknight>	he doesn't specify CPPPATH
  28 17:05:38 <stevenknight>	he'd have to add /usr/include to CPPPATH to find that <set> in preference to the current dir
  29 17:05:56 <stevenknight>	we can't know in advance what system directories a given compiler will search on its own
  30 17:05:40 <GregNoel>	Er, in that case, I'm back to invalid
  31 17:05:42 <bdbaddog>	invalid, open a new bug to make configurable
  32 17:05:50 <garyo-home>	steven: I take your meaning, but still it ought to be configurable.  (Maybe Greg's right, should be a new issue.)
  33 17:06:08 <stevenknight>	configurable how?  you can configure it right now in CPPPATH
  34 17:06:30 <stevenknight>	CPPPATH=['/usr/include/directory_containing_set'] would make his configuration work
  35 17:06:33 <garyo-home>	A search for a <> header should *never* match one in the current dir.
  36 17:06:36 <bdbaddog>	whether it looks in . first or last.
  37 17:06:54 <garyo-home>	(gcc and msvc don't look in . at all for <>)
  38 17:07:29 <garyo-home>	CPP_SCANNER_LOOK_IN_DOT_FOR_SYSINCLUDES
  39 17:07:29 <stevenknight>	okay, got it -- agree, new issue for configuring that behavior
  40 17:07:45 <GregNoel>	done
  41 17:07:53 <garyo-home>	ok, 2427
  42 17:08:24 <garyo-home>	Unfortunately this hack is what we have for now, I think we need to doc it.
  43 17:08:45 <bdbaddog>	doc +1
  44 17:09:04 <stevenknight>	agree, doc
  45 17:09:04 <GregNoel>	maybe doc with a note that it will disappear?
  46 17:09:20 <garyo-home>	... when a better mechanism is implemented.  Sure.
  47 17:09:44 <garyo-home>	The main thing wrong with it is it's global, and we really need a per-File thing.
  48 17:09:57 <garyo-home>	But anyway that's a different point.
  49 17:10:12 <stevenknight>	thought it was per-environment, so it can be configured
  50 17:10:25 <garyo-home>	Sorry, right it is per-env, but per-File is better.
  51 17:10:27 <stevenknight>	but I agree w/Greg's point about an Archive() being better in the long term
  52 17:11:03 <garyo-home>	I'm not 100% sure about how that would work but am willing to go with it for now.
  53 17:11:16 <stevenknight>	doc it
  54 17:11:24 <GregNoel>	is that a consensus?
  55 17:11:27 <garyo-home>	+1
  56 17:11:27 <stevenknight>	but should we mention it disappearing if we don't know what the replacement will be?
  57 17:11:34 <stevenknight>	that would bug me as a user
  58 17:11:46 <bdbaddog>	I'd say doc it, once we have a plan to replace, then add that to doc.
  59 17:11:52 <stevenknight>	+1
  60 17:11:56 <garyo-home>	Or deprecate it the usual way.
  61 17:12:08 <garyo-home>	doc it for now anyway.
  62 17:12:20 <GregNoel>	done
  63 17:12:41 <stevenknight>	2428:  consensus 3.x  p4 ?
  64 17:13:15 <garyo-home>	2428 consensus ok w/ me.
  65 17:13:17 <bdbaddog>	2428 +1 consensus
  66 17:13:25 <GregNoel>	done
  67 17:13:29 <GregNoel>	2429
  68 17:14:05 <garyo-home>	I think it's a real bug.
  69 17:14:12 <bdbaddog>	ditto.
  70 17:14:17 <stevenknight>	agree
  71 17:14:47 <GregNoel>	The OE is an internal object, but its effects are visible, so it's a bug.
  72 17:14:34 <garyo-home>	2.x p2?
  73 17:14:45 <bdbaddog>	2.x p2 +1
  74 17:14:56 <GregNoel>	agree
  75 17:14:57 <garyo-home>	agreed.
  76 17:14:58 <stevenknight>	2.x p2
  77 17:15:09 <GregNoel>	who?
  78 17:15:22 <stevenknight>	i have a prototype of a really different substitution mechanism that looks faster
  79 17:15:37 <GregNoel>	Sounds like a volunteer to me.
  80 17:15:37 <garyo-home>	But it may not even be subst related?
  81 17:15:53 <garyo-home>	steven, go for it.
  82 17:16:33 <GregNoel>	Bug is because call is applied to Env, not OE.
  83 17:16:40 <garyo-home>	Put a note in that I'll do it if Steven doesn't get to it.
  84 17:17:03 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll add you to the issue.
  85 17:17:14 <garyo-home>	+1
  86 17:18:00 <garyo-home>	done?
  87 17:18:20 <GregNoel>	yes, done
  88 17:18:28 <stevenknight>	(sorry, afk for a bit)
  89 17:18:56 <stevenknight>	the prototype would basically replace OverrideEnvironment
  90 17:19:15 <stevenknight>	so there wouldn't be any distinction between "real" and "override"
  91 17:19:18 <stevenknight>	they're just all stackable dicts
  92 17:19:34 <stevenknight>	it takes the technique of string.Template and extends it for our purposes
  93 17:19:43 <garyo-home>	steven: that sounds great.  I'll help test it :-)
  94 17:19:49 <GregNoel>	as will I
  95 17:19:58 <stevenknight>	the problem I'm running into is that subst_list() basically has really dumb and ill-defined semantics
  96 17:20:20 <garyo-home>	steven: 110% agreement there.  We've been through a few oddities with it.
  97 17:20:09 <stevenknight>	i should write up a discussion for the ML
  98 17:20:13 <GregNoel>	yes
  99 17:20:11 <stevenknight>	anyway, back to the issues
 100 17:18:13 <GregNoel>	2430, 2431, consensus
 101 17:18:18 <garyo-home>	agreed.
 102 17:18:54 <GregNoel>	2432, 2433, consensus
 103 17:19:18 <GregNoel>	2434, closed
 104 17:20:31 <garyo-home>	I'm fine thru 2434.
 105 17:20:44 <GregNoel>	2441, needs priority
 106 17:20:54 <garyo-home>	p3?
 107 17:21:01 <bdbaddog>	+1 p3
 108 17:21:05 <stevenknight>	p3
 109 17:21:06 <GregNoel>	works for me
 110 17:21:24 <garyo-home>	great
 111 17:21:39 <stevenknight>	2435:  since I just attached my name to OverrideEnvironments...
 112 17:22:26 <stevenknight>	2.x p3 stevenknight 
 113 17:22:28 <garyo-home>	agreed, this one's related.  It can get arbitrarily complex, but this proposal is pretty reasonable.  Would it fit with stacked dicts?
 114 17:22:46 <GregNoel>	The global names are available, and I looked at how hard the implementation would be once (should also work for env.Clone()) and it didn't look that bad.
 115 17:22:47 *	stevenknight goes to look at the original issue...
 116 17:23:43 <stevenknight>	yes, i think stackable environments takes care of this
 117 17:23:49 <stevenknight>	or most of what people want from it, anyway
 118 17:23:58 <GregNoel>	This is newenv = Environment(CPPFLAGS = Append('whatever'))
 119 17:24:22 <garyo-home>	right; the override env has to append to the original env.
 120 17:24:47 <garyo-home>	anyway, Steven will look at it, let's move on.
 121 17:25:00 <stevenknight>	i don't think that specific syntax is viable, but the concept is the same
 122 17:24:56 <GregNoel>	done
 123 17:25:18 <stevenknight>	moving on...
 124 17:25:30 <garyo-home>	2436: I'll take it
 125 17:25:43 <stevenknight>	garyo-home++
 126 17:25:48 <bdbaddog>	Gary+1
 127 17:25:49 <GregNoel>	(Hmmm...  I think my spreadsheet just crashed.)
 128 17:26:17 <garyo-home>	my gdocs still shows you viewing...
 129 17:26:28 <bdbaddog>	ditto.
 130 17:26:46 <stevenknight>	2437:  consensus 2.1 p3 ludwig
 131 17:26:57 <garyo-home>	agreed
 132 17:27:16 <stevenknight>	2438:  2.1 p3 who?
 133 17:27:23 <stevenknight>	could kick it back to Jason for the test case
 134 17:27:31 <stevenknight>	but still needs a comitter
 135 17:27:41 <garyo-home>	I'll commit it and work w/ him to get the testcase.
 136 17:27:49 <bdbaddog>	+1 gary
 137 17:28:01 <stevenknight>	thnx
 138 17:28:54 <GregNoel>	2438, look at SQEC to see if it gives you any ideas
 139 17:29:28 <garyo-home>	2438 wouldn't be needed w/ SQEC I agree, but in the near term...
 140 17:31:02 <stevenknight>	SQEC?
 141 17:31:25 <garyo-home>	"SubstQuoteEscapeCache"
 142 17:31:29 <stevenknight>	ah
 143 17:28:36 <GregNoel>	(Google spreadsheets lost my login, but I'm back...)
 144 17:28:34 <stevenknight>	2439:  2.1 p3
 145 17:28:47 <stevenknight>	who?
 146 17:29:47 <garyo-home>	someone want to integrate 2439?
 147 17:30:03 <bdbaddog>	I'll take it.
 148 17:30:10 <garyo-home>	excellent
 149 17:30:22 <GregNoel>	ok, works for me
 150 17:30:49 <GregNoel>	2440, 2442, consensus
 151 17:30:50 <garyo-home>	Greg, before you have to go, want to talk about 1.3?
 152 17:31:06 <garyo-home>	(agree w/ 2440, 2442)
 153 17:31:45 <GregNoel>	garyo-home, I'll leave my session running; I'll read it later
 154 17:31:59 <garyo-home>	ok, sounds good.
 155 17:32:16 <GregNoel>	2443
 156 17:32:17 <garyo-home>	2443's next.
 157 17:32:39 <garyo-home>	Steven: what about the line I list as suspect?
 158 17:33:03 <stevenknight>	2443:  sounds exactly right
 159 17:33:25 <stevenknight>	i thought sure we had/have some tests of aliases with actions
 160 17:33:44 <stevenknight>	either i'm hallucinating or those take a different code path
 161 17:33:53 <bdbaddog>	I"m looking at the path, and suspect maybe he's got a locally modified scons?
 162 17:34:10 <bdbaddog>	/home/Checkouts/Bazaar/SCons_trunk/...
 163 17:34:05 <garyo-home>	Well, this is a pretty nice testcase in the ticket.
 164 17:34:18 <stevenknight>	greg confirmed the failure
 165 17:34:30 <bdbaddog>	ah..true.
 166 17:34:32 <bdbaddog>	donno.
 167 17:34:53 <garyo-home>	There's no way that line 699 in Action.py can work.
 168 17:34:54 <bdbaddog>	is this a 1.3 type issue? or 2.x?
 169 17:35:14 <garyo-home>	Good q.  What's the 1.3 schedule? Frozen?
 170 17:35:47 *	garyo-home hears nothing... great silence...
 171 17:35:50 <bdbaddog>	my understanding was. One more checkpoint wait 2 weeks if nothings seriously broken then 1.3
 172 17:36:04 <bdbaddog>	then charge forward to 2.0
 173 17:36:19 <stevenknight>	uhh....
 174 17:36:23 <stevenknight>	that line looks fine, actually,
 175 17:36:27 <garyo-home>	That works for me; if so, then this can get squeezed into 1.3.
 176 17:36:30 <stevenknight>	it's calling the Environment.subst_list() method
 177 17:36:36 <stevenknight>	not Subst.scons_subst_list()
 178 17:36:45 <stevenknight>	Environment.subst_list() does take an executor= keyword argument
 179 17:36:47 <garyo-home>	Right, but that eventually calls scons_subst_list.
 180 17:37:11 <garyo-home>	Ah, the env's subst_list should strip it out?
 181 17:37:19 <stevenknight>	right, but it doesn't try to pass executor= to it
 182 17:37:22 <stevenknight>	so far as i can see
 183 17:37:25 <GregNoel>	Taking too long; defer until next time
 184 17:37:31 <stevenknight>	GregNoel++
 185 17:37:41 <garyo-home>	hmm, ok.
 186 17:38:03 <GregNoel>	I propose to stop here and go on to 1.3 discussion.
 187 17:38:05 <bdbaddog>	put research bill? 
 188 17:38:22 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me!
 189 17:38:25 <stevenknight>	2443 research bill ok by  me
 190 17:38:38 <bdbaddog>	o.k. on to 1.3
 191 17:39:02 <garyo-home>	Bill, are you still OK making the checkpoint?
 192 17:39:05 <GregNoel>	ARGV, got to go; cul
 193 17:39:12 <garyo-home>	ok bye
 194 17:39:21 <stevenknight>	later
 195 17:39:31 <bdbaddog>	Later Greg!
 196 17:39:37 <garyo-home>	I've done one before, I can help if needed.
 197 17:39:49 <stevenknight>	if it would help, i could open up the system that I use for cutting the releases
 198 17:39:53 <bdbaddog>	yes. Just taking a bit to get the changes together and coherent. the other parst are easy.
 199 17:39:55 <stevenknight>	it's a VM
 200 17:40:04 <bdbaddog>	ahh.
 201 17:40:10 <bdbaddog>	how big's the footprint?
 202 17:40:24 <bdbaddog>	I can bring you a usb hardrive..
 203 17:40:33 <stevenknight>	i was going to let you ssh in
 204 17:40:38 <bdbaddog>	oh. o.k.
 205 17:40:53 <stevenknight>	but the creation of the image is also automated
 206 17:41:22 <garyo-home>	I have a small VM (ubuntu) that can build a release, w/ doc tools etc. if that helps?
 207 17:41:47 <bdbaddog>	I'm not too worried about that part. It's just been tough getting a block of time to get the text part together.
 208 17:42:09 <stevenknight>	that's usually been the most time-consuming part for me, too
 209 17:42:29 <bdbaddog>	I think we should start to enforce/encourage update Changes.txt with each checkin.
 210 17:42:37 <bdbaddog>	and the release message.
 211 17:42:50 <bdbaddog>	though svn would be fine too.
 212 17:43:01 <bdbaddog>	and then pushing the button is easy.
 213 17:42:35 <garyo-home>	Want to write it as a google doc w/ irc?
 214 17:42:45 <garyo-home>	+1 on both of those!
 215 17:43:22 <bdbaddog>	I'll try and get it done tonight.
 216 17:43:39 <garyo-home>	OK, if you want review just let me know.
 217 17:44:15 <stevenknight>	agree on CHANGES.txt
 218 17:44:19 <bdbaddog>	sure. I'll send out text to release mail list for review. And then how do we post it to all the correct places.
 219 17:44:32 <garyo-home>	That, for me, was time consuming.
 220 17:44:45 <stevenknight>	yes
 221 17:44:46 <bdbaddog>	Changes.txt and release notice.
 222 17:44:50 <garyo-home>	Tigris, sf, website...
 223 17:45:15 <stevenknight>	first, we should give you appropriate privileges on those sites
 224 17:45:24 <stevenknight>	and then second, there's gotta be a way to automate doing those
 225 17:45:13 <bdbaddog>	so the changes and release are since 1.2.x or since last checkpoint?
 226 17:45:36 <stevenknight>	last checkpoint
 227 17:45:53 <garyo-home>	(but the 1.3 changes will be from 1.2)
 228 17:45:59 <bdbaddog>	yes.
 229 17:45:57 <stevenknight>	originally i started trying to adjust CHANGES.txt so it would be since last release (e.g. 1.2.x)
 230 17:46:01 <stevenknight>	but that got too confusing
 231 17:46:25 <stevenknight>	seemed easier to grok that all of the accumulated checkpoints since the last 1.2.x line in CHANGES.txt
 232 17:46:31 <stevenknight>	were part of 1.3.x
 233 17:46:26 <garyo-home>	If we have people update it on commit, won't it have to be since last release?
 234 17:46:30 <bdbaddog>	Could have Changes.release.txt and Changes.Checkpoint.txt or something like that.
 235 17:47:02 <stevenknight>	?  not following
 236 17:47:17 <garyo-home>	Maybe on release we could just remove the checkpoint lines, leaving only the changes?
 237 17:47:21 <bdbaddog>	so 3 files. Changes.txt which is running change list.
 238 17:47:44 <bdbaddog>	hmm. never mind.. 
 239 17:47:50 <bdbaddog>	o.k. I like Gary's idea.
 240 17:48:02 <stevenknight>	could do that
 241 17:48:02 <bdbaddog>	since the checkpoints are discardable.
 242 17:48:14 <garyo-home>	right.
 243 17:48:24 <stevenknight>	but I think some people do treat the checkpoints as releases
 244 17:48:45 <stevenknight>	is there actual harm in preserving the info?
 245 17:48:53 <garyo-home>	it's just visual noise.
 246 17:49:08 <garyo-home>	Maybe we indent those or something.
 247 17:49:19 <bdbaddog>	O.k. also, let's checkin the announcment file, which get's wiped clean at each real release?
 248 17:49:45 <bdbaddog>	And for checkpoints, let just refer people to the changes.txt ?
 249 17:50:16 <garyo-home>	+1 on checking in the announcement file for sure.
 250 17:50:33 <stevenknight>	dunno, doesn't seem worth extra effort to remove and reorganize
 251 17:50:42 <stevenknight>	+1 to checking in announcement
 252 17:50:49 <stevenknight>	yeah
 253 17:51:17 <bdbaddog>	O.k. I"ll check in a Blank.
 254 17:51:30 <garyo-home>	release-announcement.txt?  RELEASE.txt?
 255 17:51:53 <bdbaddog>	Announcement.txt ?
 256 17:52:08 <garyo-home>	works for me
 257 17:52:46 <stevenknight>	announcement.txt (your choice capitlization)
 258 17:53:11 <garyo-home>	So for changes.txt we'll leave the checkpoints in for now (maybe indent or something)?
 259 17:53:46 <bdbaddog>	Yes. I guess we can just leave what's there now. And when we go 2.0 move Changes.txt to Changes-1.txt
 260 17:53:53 <bdbaddog>	In 2.0 indent checkpoints?
 261 17:54:31 <garyo-home>	Sure, we can iron out the details when we get there.
 262 17:54:49 <stevenknight>	yeah
 263 17:54:51 <garyo-home>	(I'd be OK w/ deleting the older checkpoints too, just keep 1 release back or so)
 264 17:55:23 <bdbaddog>	Can we breach a 2.0 topic?
 265 17:55:24 <bdbaddog>	;)
 266 17:55:27 <stevenknight>	but i personally wouldn't invest a lot of time on it, it doesn't seem like anyone's really complaining
 267 17:55:38 <bdbaddog>	ok.
 268 17:55:42 <garyo-home>	agreed.
 269 17:55:50 <garyo-home>	sure, 2.0?
 270 17:55:56 <stevenknight>	to really clean it up, you not only have to delete the checkpoint lines, but you have to merge the individual contributor sections
 271 17:56:06 <garyo-home>	(good point)
 272 17:56:00 <stevenknight>	2.0
 273 17:56:30 <bdbaddog>	:) My normal python question. Since time has marched on and we drew the line in the sand a while back, can we more to a newer version for 2.0 than python 2.2?
 274 17:57:25 <garyo-home>	what features would we gain by going to, say, 2.3?
 275 17:57:51 *	stevenknight will go with the collective wisdom
 276 17:57:53 <bdbaddog>	2.5 gets us subprocess right?
 277 17:57:53 <stevenknight>	that said
 278 17:58:23 <stevenknight>	2.3 did seem only marginally better than 2.2
 279 17:58:27 <stevenknight>	2.4 starts to get significant
 280 17:58:29 <stevenknight>	iirc
 281 17:58:51 <garyo-home>	We already have a bunch of compat stuff; I think it would have to be a language feature.
 282 17:58:53 <stevenknight>	i don't think modules (e.g. subprocess) are a compelling reason to prefer one over the other
 283 17:58:59 <stevenknight>	because we can handle them in compat
 284 17:59:18 <stevenknight>	agree w/gary, language features are stronger determinants
 285 17:59:33 <bdbaddog>	2.5 gets' with.
 286 17:59:41 <garyo-home>	What about unicode? Anything important?
 287 18:00:08 <stevenknight>	i'd have a hard time going with 2.5; google internal standard is still 2.4
 288 18:00:20 <garyo-home>	Bill: do you think we could really jump all the way to 2.5 though?  We'll lose all the IRIX people for sure, and some older Linuxes too.
 289 18:00:47 <bdbaddog>	does python 2.5 not build on irix?
 290 18:01:02 <bdbaddog>	2.4 gets us generators.
 291 18:01:15 <garyo-home>	Last I knew the latest nekochan build was 2.3.
 292 18:01:26 <bdbaddog>	do you not build from sources?
 293 18:02:11 <garyo-home>	I take it back, there's a 2.5.2 there now.
 294 18:02:38 <garyo-home>	(It's not what *I* do, it's what my *users* do. :-/)
 295 18:02:50 <bdbaddog>	ahh. users=customers?
 296 18:02:54 <garyo-home>	yep.
 297 18:02:59 <bdbaddog>	they build from sources?
 298 18:03:04 <stevenknight>	2.3 gets generators
 299 18:03:15 <garyo-home>	of course they won't run scons.  I'm just using them as an example of "typical IRIX users"
 300 18:03:32 <garyo-home>	generators are very useful.
 301 18:04:00 <stevenknight>	2.4 has decorators, which are kind of nifty but basically syntactic sugar for something you can code by hand
 302 18:04:03 <garyo-home>	... but you can import generators from future in 2.2 (I think)
 303 18:04:12 <bdbaddog>	I've never been in an environment where I couldn't build a new version of scripting language for use by build system.
 304 18:04:38 <bdbaddog>	true on decorators, but anything which makes the code easier to read will be a win..
 305 18:04:48 <stevenknight>	true
 306 18:04:56 <garyo-home>	One good thing is, once we have Lukas's all-in-one Windows installer, we won't even require python on a windows box.
 307 18:04:59 <bdbaddog>	I'd be up for saying 2.5, pushing the checkpoitn with it and 1.3
 308 18:05:06 <bdbaddog>	and if the world freaks out, we backtrack.
 309 18:05:14 <bdbaddog>	we'lll have some time before 2.0's out.
 310 18:05:27 <stevenknight>	probably
 311 18:05:50 <stevenknight>	i'd have a lot of internal projects thought that would break
 312 18:06:13 <stevenknight>	though
 313 18:06:16 <garyo-home>	I'd be pretty scared to go to 2.5
 314 18:06:32 <stevenknight>	i can see either 2.3 or 2.4
 315 18:06:34 <bdbaddog>	steven - due to 2.4 internal to google?
 316 18:06:41 <stevenknight>	yes
 317 18:06:41 <bdbaddog>	o.k. let's go with 2.4
 318 18:07:01 <bdbaddog>	If we slip another 6 months or more on 2.0, then revisit.
 319 18:07:07 <bdbaddog>	and/or google updates to 2.5.. 
 320 18:07:09 <bdbaddog>	;)
 321 18:07:13 <stevenknight>	yes  :-)
 322 18:07:27 <bdbaddog>	Gary - what'd be the basis of your fear?
 323 18:07:40 <garyo-home>	from http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html, 2.4 was Nov 2004.
 324 18:07:43 <bdbaddog>	then again I"m the let's break some egg's kind of guy.
 325 18:07:55 <bdbaddog>	5 years ago almost.
 326 18:07:55 <stevenknight>	how about we poll the ML for objections to 2.4, with 2.3 as the fallback?
 327 18:07:57 <garyo-home>	My fear? We lose users due to them not being able to upgrade their pythons.
 328 18:08:10 <garyo-home>	+1 on poll ML (again :-))
 329 18:08:12 <bdbaddog>	they'll yell at us, and we can backtrack.
 330 18:08:39 <bdbaddog>	I think the mailing list hasn't provided any insight, and the only reall proof will be when the tool starts yelling at the users.
 331 18:08:42 <stevenknight>	okay, how about:  release 1.3 first
 332 18:08:48 <bdbaddog>	:)
 333 18:08:49 <stevenknight>	then float 2.4 on the ML
 334 18:09:06 <bdbaddog>	well we'd be putting the warning in 1.3 about next version 2.x minimum right?
 335 18:09:31 <bdbaddog>	that's why I bring it up now.
 336 18:09:54 <garyo-home>	hmm.
 337 18:10:13 <stevenknight>	ah
 338 18:10:45 <garyo-home>	even if disablable, that's a little annoying.
 339 18:10:59 <bdbaddog>	don't we alreayd have that in place for 2.2?
 340 18:11:11 <garyo-home>	do we?
 341 18:11:25 <stevenknight>	sorry bill, you kicked the ball in your own goal -- i'm back to preferring 2.3 ... :-)
 342 18:11:41 <bdbaddog>	oh dude.. ur killin me.
 343 18:12:06 <bdbaddog>	2.3 is 2003.
 344 18:12:08 <garyo-home>	(my vm is being annoying, or I'd look)
 345 18:12:11 <bdbaddog>	6 years aog.
 346 18:12:20 <stevenknight>	so we turn the clock forward five years!
 347 18:12:27 <bdbaddog>	wheel's were square then.
 348 18:12:37 <stevenknight>	that's almost half way!
 349 18:12:40 <stevenknight>	:-)
 350 18:12:58 <garyo-home>	Steven: what changed your mind 2.4 -> 2.3?  I don't think we'd lose that many users.
 351 18:13:01 <bdbaddog>	I don't think anyones using 2.3
 352 18:13:08 <stevenknight>	having to put the warning in 1.3
 353 18:13:23 <garyo-home>	But Bill's saying we already have a warning.
 354 18:13:27 <bdbaddog>	we can always patch it back in 1.3.1 if we get a lot of negative feedback.
 355 18:13:52 *	stevenknight breathes deeply
 356 18:14:01 <stevenknight>	oooo... kayyyy....
 357 18:14:14 <bdbaddog>	it'd be a 1 line patch and realease. if it's really bad.
 358 18:14:36 <stevenknight>	you want to make the change in this checkpoint?  or only for 1.3 release?
 359 18:15:04 <bdbaddog>	hmm.
 360 18:15:08 <garyo-home>	If we get zero feedback from the warning, then I think we're safe.  If we get even one negative, I'll want to revisit.
 361 18:15:12 <bdbaddog>	if the codes already there then for checkpoint.
 362 18:15:21 <garyo-home>	bdbaddog: agreed.
 363 18:15:22 <stevenknight>	warning in a checkpoint, or in a release?
 364 18:15:40 <garyo-home>	both (assuming it's already there now)
 365 18:15:40 <bdbaddog>	checkpoint if the check is already there, otherwise 1.3
 366 18:15:59 <stevenknight>	although some people treat checkpoints as release, people that are still using 2.3 are unlikely to track checkpoints
 367 18:16:23 <stevenknight>	so silence from the checkpoint warning has strong potential to be a false positive
 368 18:16:25 <garyo-home>	agreed. iit needs to be there in 1.3 anyway.
 369 18:16:50 <stevenknight>	okay, i can go with it
 370 18:17:04 <stevenknight>	now we just have to twist Greg's arm after he reads this... :-)
 371 18:17:08 <bdbaddog>	codes already there.
 372 18:17:12 <bdbaddog>	:)
 373 18:17:22 <bdbaddog>	eh.. sorry I can't hear you.. zztt zttt static on the line..
 374 18:17:26 <bdbaddog>	True.
 375 18:17:27 <garyo-home>	... so our existing checkpoint is already warning at 2.2?
 376 18:17:29 <stevenknight>	you sneak, you... :-)
 377 18:17:34 <bdbaddog>	yes. already there.
 378 18:17:42 <bdbaddog>	I didn't do it. somebody else did it.
 379 18:17:52 <stevenknight>	oh, wait -- i knew it was warning re: 2.2
 380 18:17:57 <garyo-home>	Right, I kind of remember that now.
 381 18:18:00 <stevenknight>	i thought you meant you already checked in the 2.4 warning
 382 18:18:00 <bdbaddog>	yes warning 2.2
 383 18:18:11 <bdbaddog>	no.. didn't do that.. dang. wish I'd thought of that.
 384 18:18:13 <garyo-home>	So we just bump that warning level up a notch.
 385 18:18:20 <bdbaddog>	exactly.
 386 18:18:21 <stevenknight>	right
 387 18:18:23 <garyo-home>	or two.
 388 18:18:29 <stevenknight>	or .2
 389 18:18:30 <bdbaddog>	+.2
 390 18:18:36 <garyo-home>	ok, I'm on board, let's see what happens.
 391 18:18:49 <bdbaddog>	o.k. I just don't want the project to get stuck in the past like Plone..
 392 18:18:58 <bdbaddog>	and be too worried about moving forward.
 393 18:19:18 <garyo-home>	right, or like not changing Makefile tab syntax because it already had 100 users.
 394 18:19:45 <garyo-home>	ok, so we can call it a night I think?
 395 18:19:52 <bdbaddog>	yes. Thanks to all!
 396 18:19:55 <garyo-home>	Bill, let me know if I can help w/ the checkpoint.
 397 18:20:10 <bdbaddog>	will do. I'll try to get the text out tonight and packages ready too.
 398 18:20:17 <garyo-home>	Sounds great.
 399 18:20:34 <garyo-home>	Thanks all.
 400 18:20:36 <garyo-home>	cul
 401 18:20:40 <bdbaddog>	if whomever can give me access to the appropriate uploads I'd need can do that and/or push the packages when done.
 402 18:20:59 <garyo-home>	Oh yeah, Steven, can you do that?
 403 18:21:40 <garyo-home>	I'll email you the website login/password, Bill.
 404 18:22:03 <bdbaddog>	k. thanks. 
 405 18:22:11 <stevenknight>	okay, i'll add bill to SF, tigris.org and...  what else?
 406 18:22:21 <stevenknight>	feel like i'm missing something
 407 18:22:26 <stevenknight>	pair.com?
 408 18:22:37 <garyo-home>	I think it's just those two, I'll get him the pair login/password.
 409 18:22:46 <stevenknight>	okay, i'll take sf and tigris.org
 410 18:22:48 <stevenknight>	many thanks guys
 411 18:22:52 <garyo-home>	np
 412 18:23:08 <garyo-home>	'night.
 413 18:23:16 <bdbaddog>	night!
 414 18:38:17 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.5.2/20090729225027]")
 415 19:12:38 *	stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 416 20:31:57 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 417 

BugParty/IrcLog2009-08-25 (last edited 2009-08-27 20:40:33 by ip68-7-77-81)