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 10:41:50 *	sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/session) has joined #scons
   2 16:46:32 *	garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   3 16:55:30 *	You are no longer marked as being away
   4 16:55:41 <garyo>	hi, anyone here yet?
   5 16:55:55 *	GregNoel is still setting up
   6 16:57:46 <GregNoel>	OK, that seems to do it.  Network is very sluggish tonight.  Probably overload on my ISP.
   7 16:58:25 <garyo>	Hi Greg.  Got a few comments in...
   8 16:58:49 <GregNoel>	Hi, Gary...  Good.
   9 16:59:00 <GregNoel>	Steven isn't here yet, so don't stop now.
  10 17:00:23 <sgk_>	hello
  11 17:00:49 <GregNoel>	Whoa, where did you come from?
  12 17:00:54 <sgk_>	using this nick tonight
  13 17:01:07 <sgk_>	actually signed on much earlier today, as a way to bring up colloquy on my laptop
  14 17:02:01 <GregNoel>	Ah.  So we seem to have a quorum, although Gary is off adding some last-minute comments.
  15 17:01:54 <garyo>	Hi Steven
  16 17:02:09 <GregNoel>	And there he is...
  17 17:02:10 <sgk_>	i'll have a longer shuttle break from now on, probably 1715 - 1725 or so
  18 17:02:19 <sgk_>	i'm in a new building and have to hike to the stop
  19 17:02:44 <GregNoel>	Should we move the time to a different time to avoid that?
  20 17:03:08 <garyo>	My time is limited so let's start in. (Greg: later is better for me usually)
  21 17:03:08 <sgk_>	if you guys want to, fine, but i'm okay with it either way
  22 17:03:26 <sgk_>	2470:  any word from OP?
  23 17:03:37 <garyo>	Yes, he said there's no user-visible error from it.
  24 17:03:43 <garyo>	So we should just make it low pri.
  25 17:03:49 <GregNoel>	concur
  26 17:03:51 <sgk_>	future p4?
  27 17:03:56 <sgk_>	3.x p4?
  28 17:04:03 <GregNoel>	the latter
  29 17:04:02 <garyo>	I still think it's a bug though.  I like 3.x p4.
  30 17:04:11 <GregNoel>	done
  31 17:04:15 <sgk_>	2470:  3.x p4 done
  32 17:04:32 <garyo>	2474: someone needs to research it I guess.
  33 17:04:57 <GregNoel>	From the description, I'm convinced it's the directory thing, so I guess I have to look at it.
  34 17:05:12 <garyo>	Maybe start by asking OP if it still happens w/ COmmand?
  35 17:05:12 <sgk_>	okay, research gregnoel?
  36 17:05:18 <garyo>	+1
  37 17:05:23 <GregNoel>	yeah, sigh
  38 17:05:28 <garyo>	thanks
  39 17:05:28 <sgk_>	thnx
  40 17:05:48 <GregNoel>	2482, I think I have a fix
  41 17:05:53 <garyo>	excellent!
  42 17:05:57 <sgk_>	GregNoel++
  43 17:06:28 <sgk_>	brb
  44 17:06:46 <GregNoel>	I asked the OP to test it, but no word back yet.  I can try to work on it this week, but time is being compressed.
  45 17:07:44 <garyo>	you can say that again.
  46 17:08:02 <GregNoel>	make it research GregNoel and I'll try to get to it before 1.3 (the test will be nasty)
  47 17:08:09 <sgk_>	back
  48 17:08:38 <garyo>	sounds like 2482 is in progress anyway so no action needed from us
  49 17:08:01 <garyo>	2490: Greg, did you see if update has tests?  I agree w/ your priorities in either case.  (I'd say p3, C# is pretty popular)
  50 17:08:50 <sgk_>	haven't looked at 2490 yet, i'll do so
  51 17:09:17 <garyo>	ok, steven research, then 2.1/2.x p3 (depending on whether it has tests)?
  52 17:09:18 <GregNoel>	er, I wrote the OP and he added a note with what the changes were
  53 17:09:42 <sgk_>	need to put my name on it -- doing so right now
  54 17:09:46 <GregNoel>	no tests, but he says he can write some when his vacation starts
  55 17:09:55 <garyo>	ah, he says he'll put some tests together.  Great!
  56 17:10:22 <sgk_>	wait, looks like my name might have been put on 2491 by mistake?
  57 17:10:46 <sgk_>	no, 2491 is correct, i just need to add 2490
  58 17:10:47 <sgk_>	don't mind me
  59 17:11:19 <garyo>	yup, 2491's yours too
  60 17:11:55 <garyo>	so are we done w/ 2490?
  61 17:11:59 <GregNoel>	did you set the milestone and priority on 2490?
  62 17:12:13 <sgk_>	yes, research SK p3
  63 17:12:16 <sgk_>	just setting now
  64 17:12:26 <GregNoel>	cool, tks, so 2497
  65 17:13:19 <GregNoel>	I don't see what he's expecting.  He's trying to bind to a static library as if it were dynamic.  Doesn't work.
  66 17:13:33 <garyo>	I think there's a Qt way of building a program from a lib, but this seems low priority to fix to me.  Workaround is to add a dummy source.
  67 17:13:48 <GregNoel>	I agree.
  68 17:13:57 <GregNoel>	invalid or wontfix?
  69 17:14:12 <sgk_>	3.x p4?
  70 17:14:22 <garyo>	wontfix; user could consider it a bug but we won't fix it.
  71 17:14:29 <GregNoel>	done
  72 17:14:37 <sgk_>	okay
  73 17:14:55 <garyo>	2498
  74 17:15:04 <sgk_>	research SK p... 3?
  75 17:15:12 <GregNoel>	yeah
  76 17:15:38 <garyo>	ok
  77 17:15:41 <GregNoel>	done
  78 17:16:03 <GregNoel>	2500 fixed?
  79 17:16:13 <sgk_>	haven't looked, sorry
  80 17:16:17 <sgk_>	putting my name on this, too
  81 17:16:37 <GregNoel>	milestone and priority?
  82 17:16:28 <sgk_>	fortunately, i'm almost done with the timing stuff
  83 17:16:38 <sgk_>	so i'll prioritize my time after that to clear these
  84 17:16:57 <GregNoel>	so 1.3 p?
  85 17:17:07 <sgk_>	research p2, then 2.1 p2 if it's not already fixed?
  86 17:17:18 <GregNoel>	works
  87 17:17:20 <garyo>	ok
  88 17:17:51 <GregNoel>	2502 who?
  89 17:17:49 <garyo>	2502: I can take that one
  90 17:17:56 <GregNoel>	done
  91 17:18:35 <GregNoel>	2503
  92 17:18:29 <garyo>	2503: batch-compilation thing
  93 17:19:08 <GregNoel>	This is usually reordered implicit dependencies
  94 17:19:02 <garyo>	Steven: is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?
  95 17:19:09 <sgk_>	my bus is leaving the stop two before mine, gotta go, back in ~5-10
  96 17:19:13 *	sgk_ has quit ()
  97 17:20:08 <GregNoel>	for the signature?  yeah, it could be bad if the list of sources changes.
  98 17:19:42 <garyo>	I wish Bill were here, I was hoping he'd have time to put out the checkpoint.
  99 17:20:05 <garyo>	I absolutely don't have time to do it :-(
 100 17:20:42 <garyo>	With batch compilation (cl.exe a.c b.c c.c ...) the list changes a lot.
 101 17:21:04 <garyo>	and it shouldn't recompile everything if only one source changes; it's because the cmd line is part of the sig.
 102 17:21:35 <GregNoel>	Er, wait...  Yeah, I was thinking of how TNG handles it.  I don't know if it would be a problem currently.
 103 17:22:19 <garyo>	I think in this case you explicitly DON'T want the list of sources to be part of the sig of each object.
 104 17:23:19 <GregNoel>	Probably not, but I should make a note for TNG that this will take some extra specification.
 105 17:22:45 <garyo>	(he fixes that, but then notes that it still pulls all of them from cache, but that's much lower priority imho)
 106 17:23:53 <garyo>	I don't use the batch stuff; should probably try it.
 107 17:24:00 <garyo>	dogfooding & all that.
 108 17:24:30 <GregNoel>	Neither do I...  Or precompiled headers...  My projects are all only a few files...  Somebody here should use it regularly.
 109 17:25:08 <garyo>	I can't do precompiled headers because all my stuff is very cross-platform, and a typical precompiled-header organization is pretty different from what you want without them.
 110 17:25:41 <garyo>	But batch I could use.  Just need time...
 111 17:26:59 <GregNoel>	"Ask me for anything except time."
 112 17:27:46 <garyo>	:-/
 113 17:26:37 <GregNoel>	for 2504, it looks like there's a consensus on anytime +Easy, probably p4.  I'll go with that.
 114 17:27:53 <garyo>	agree w/ 2504.
 115 17:28:14 <garyo>	Looks like Steven's back...
 116 17:28:22 *	sgk_ (n=sgk@nat/google/x-ofvjygvagdzcapee) has joined #scons
 117 17:28:29 <GregNoel>	2505, no idea.  And Steven is back.
 118 17:28:29 <garyo>	Hi again
 119 17:28:29 <sgk_>	back
 120 17:29:01 <garyo>	So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile?
 121 17:29:33 <GregNoel>	Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?"
 122 17:29:35 <garyo>	... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it?
 123 17:30:19 *	sgk__ (n=sgk@67.218.107.243) has joined #scons
 124 17:30:31 <GregNoel>	Back again?
 125 17:30:45 <garyo>	He's adding underscores :-)
 126 17:30:53 <sgk__>	...and that takes time!
 127 17:30:58 <GregNoel>	I suppose it's one way to score...
 128 17:31:09 <sgk__>	it reconnected to the wrong wifi while we were at the stop
 129 17:31:22 <garyo>	got it.
 130 17:30:34 <GregNoel>	Pending question for Steven about 2503, "is there any reason putting $( $) around the batch of files would be bad?"
 131 17:31:29 <garyo>	So for 2503, the batch one, shouldn't we just put $( )$ around the $SOURCES list in a batch compile?
 132 17:31:35 <garyo>	... so the sig of each obj doesn't contain the names of all the other files that were compiled with it?
 133 17:31:50 <sgk__>	off hand $( $) sounds reasonable, but i haven't looked at the bug in detail
 134 17:32:14 <garyo>	can you research it since batch was yours?
 135 17:32:19 <sgk__>	yeah
 136 17:32:30 <garyo>	ok, thx
 137 17:32:35 <GregNoel>	If you can't fix it in a day, say, make it 2.1 p3?
 138 17:32:52 *	sgk_ has quit (Nick collision from services.)
 139 17:33:01 <GregNoel>	Bye, Steven
 140 17:32:58 *	sgk__ is now known as sgk_
 141 17:33:05 <GregNoel>	Hi, Steven
 142 17:33:18 <sgk_>	sorry, just removing underscores
 143 17:33:23 <sgk_>	yes, i'll update right now
 144 17:33:31 <GregNoel>	OK, thanks
 145 17:33:52 <GregNoel>	2504, resolved
 146 17:34:53 <GregNoel>	er, 2504, anytime p4 +Easy
 147 17:33:59 <GregNoel>	2505, no idea
 148 17:34:28 <garyo>	2505: nor me really, someone needs to read the doc.
 149 17:34:51 <garyo>	I think we should just defer it for now. :-(
 150 17:35:00 <sgk_>	2505:  i thought that's what we were talking about for 2503
 151 17:35:03 <sgk_>	just put my name on it
 152 17:35:05 <sgk_>	so give it to me
 153 17:35:23 <garyo>	ok!
 154 17:35:30 <GregNoel>	++
 155 17:35:35 <garyo>	also 2503 to you, right?
 156 17:35:36 <GregNoel>	research?
 157 17:36:14 <garyo>	yes
 158 17:36:19 <sgk_>	same disposition as 2503, research SK, then 2.1 p3 if fix isn't quick
 159 17:36:25 <GregNoel>	done
 160 17:36:41 <GregNoel>	2506
 161 17:37:04 <sgk_>	i'd be okay with WONTFIX
 162 17:37:15 <garyo>	I think we should just let Bill fix it since he found it.
 163 17:37:19 <sgk_>	and if bdbaddog wants it bad enough he can fix it himself...
 164 17:37:20 <sgk_>	agreed
 165 17:37:23 <GregNoel>	either works for me
 166 17:37:38 <garyo>	wontfix is a little dangerous though since it's not even a funny char, just a dirname with three octal chars.
 167 17:37:52 <sgk_>	oh
 168 17:37:59 <sgk_>	okay, then let's give it to bdbaddog
 169 17:38:08 <GregNoel>	then 2506 Bill 2.x p3?
 170 17:38:02 <sgk_>	2.x p3
 171 17:38:04 <garyo>	+1
 172 17:38:10 <GregNoel>	done
 173 17:38:11 <sgk_>	he can reprioritize if he wants, since it's his
 174 17:38:38 <sgk_>	2508:  change to anytime p4
 175 17:38:51 <GregNoel>	But not +Easy, so who?
 176 17:38:56 <garyo>	2507?
 177 17:39:01 <sgk_>	do we need to assign anytimes?
 178 17:39:06 <sgk_>	oh, sorry
 179 17:39:18 <garyo>	how about future?
 180 17:39:18 <sgk_>	skipped down too far
 181 17:39:20 <sgk_>	2507
 182 17:39:34 <garyo>	who's our fortran person these days?
 183 17:39:46 <GregNoel>	Do we have one?
 184 17:39:49 <garyo>	(silence fills the room)
 185 17:39:58 <GregNoel>	David, maybe?
 186 17:40:00 <sgk_>	cricket... cricket... critcket...
 187 17:40:15 <GregNoel>	(more silence)
 188 17:40:14 <sgk_>	david, if he'll take it
 189 17:40:27 <garyo>	I think you're right, David may know Fortran.
 190 17:40:26 <sgk_>	assign it to him and let him give it back?
 191 17:40:33 <garyo>	good w/ me
 192 17:40:34 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll contact him.
 193 17:40:34 <sgk_>	:-)
 194 17:40:38 <GregNoel>	done
 195 17:40:42 <GregNoel>	Oops, milestone and priority?
 196 17:40:56 <garyo>	2.x p4
 197 17:41:03 <GregNoel>	works for me
 198 17:41:04 <sgk_>	done
 199 17:41:19 <sgk_>	now 2508, anytime p4
 200 17:41:25 <sgk_>	do we need to assign an anytime?
 201 17:41:37 <GregNoel>	Yes, if it's not +Easy
 202 17:41:55 <garyo>	how about if it's a p4? Maybe those could be left unassigned too?
 203 17:42:09 <GregNoel>	The +Easy is stuff we hope the community will pick up for us
 204 17:42:29 <garyo>	true
 205 17:42:36 <sgk_>	okay, then me
 206 17:42:42 <GregNoel>	done
 207 17:42:51 <garyo>	or maybe we just say wontfix?
 208 17:43:01 <sgk_>	ooh, wontfix isn't a bad idea
 209 17:43:21 <sgk_>	yeah, wontfix
 210 17:44:02 <GregNoel>	2508, wontfix is OK
 211 17:43:55 <sgk_>	2509:  garyo, back to OP
 212 17:43:59 <sgk_>	done
 213 17:44:08 <garyo>	sk: you mean for 2508, right?
 214 17:44:17 <garyo>	I'd agree w/ that.
 215 17:44:33 <sgk_>	yes, 2508: wontfix, invite re-open and a patch if it's important
 216 17:43:09 <GregNoel>	2509, VS
 217 17:43:35 <garyo>	2509: give it to me, I'll ask him to retest w/ trunk.
 218 17:43:42 <sgk_>	with a note that a patch would be accepted if someone wants to make it all work on windows
 219 17:44:38 <sgk_>	2509:  garyo, note back to OP
 220 17:44:43 <garyo>	yes
 221 17:44:43 <GregNoel>	done
 222 17:45:08 <garyo>	2510: agree w/ Steven
 223 17:45:12 <GregNoel>	ditto
 224 17:45:13 <sgk_>	2510 and 2511:  2.x p3 rob
 225 17:45:16 <GregNoel>	done
 226 17:45:19 <garyo>	great
 227 17:45:51 <GregNoel>	2512
 228 17:45:51 <sgk_>	2512:  2.x p2 since a 2.1 volunteer seems unlikely
 229 17:46:01 <GregNoel>	I have to agree
 230 17:46:17 <sgk_>	do we need an assignee?
 231 17:46:20 <garyo>	sure seems like a bug, 2.x p2 is OK.  I could take it then.
 232 17:46:34 <sgk_>	thnx
 233 17:46:37 <GregNoel>	done, thanks
 234 17:46:44 <garyo>	(It'll change current behavior of course.)
 235 17:47:01 <sgk_>	understood re: changed behavior
 236 17:46:42 <sgk_>	2513:  2.x p3 rob
 237 17:47:04 <sgk_>	2514:  2.x p3 rob
 238 17:47:09 <GregNoel>	done and done
 239 17:47:09 <sgk_>	go rob!
 240 17:47:18 <garyo>	agreed
 241 17:47:32 <GregNoel>	(minimum goal...)
 242 17:47:48 <sgk_>	yeah, i'm still 30 minutes away from stop
 243 17:48:05 <sgk_>	anything else to discuss or should we plung on?
 244 17:48:20 <GregNoel>	Gary wants to discuss 1.3 release
 245 17:48:35 <sgk_>	k
 246 17:48:46 <garyo>	I do; mostly I wanted to see if Bill has time to put out the checkpoint.  But he's not here.
 247 17:49:01 <garyo>	I don't have time to do it, but it needs doing.
 248 17:49:19 <garyo>	How about if I contact him offline and see what he's up to?
 249 17:49:27 <sgk_>	garyo:  sounds good
 250 17:49:36 <GregNoel>	garyo, works for me
 251 17:49:37 <sgk_>	if he can't get at it, let me know and I'll see if i can
 252 17:49:45 <sgk_>	if it's really ready to go it shouldn't be too bad
 253 17:49:52 <garyo>	ok, thanks for that.  I'll let you know.
 254 17:50:17 <garyo>	Need to write up the changes but it's basically ready.
 255 17:50:24 <sgk_>	okay re: release
 256 17:47:56 <garyo>	Aha, 2515 has good information!
 257 17:48:11 <garyo>	I can use that to improve the 64-bit detection.  Give it to me.
 258 17:48:19 <garyo>	1.x p3.
 259 17:48:31 <sgk_>	2515:  1.x p3 garyo
 260 17:48:32 <GregNoel>	2515, done
 261 17:49:14 <GregNoel>	2516, invalid
 262 17:49:22 <sgk_>	2516 invalid
 263 17:49:32 <garyo>	2516: agreed.
 264 17:50:15 <GregNoel>	2517, puzzling
 265 17:50:32 <sgk_>	2517:  feels like a defer thing to me
 266 17:50:40 <sgk_>	unless we have a java expert ready to go
 267 17:50:52 <GregNoel>	OK, defer
 268 17:51:09 <garyo>	agree w/ defer.
 269 17:50:32 <garyo>	sgk_: so do you have a Nexus One????
 270 17:50:42 <sgk_>	garyo:  yes
 271 17:51:27 <garyo>	I want one (Nexus One).
 272 17:51:58 <sgk_>	i'm digging it
 273 17:52:14 <sgk_>	big upgrade for me, i was using the G1 they gave us last year
 274 17:52:41 <garyo>	I have a G1 w/ cyanogen, not too bad.  But I want the big screen, snapdragon cpu.
 275 17:52:47 <garyo>	Do you miss the keyboard?
 276 17:52:59 <sgk_>	only a little, the touch screen keyboard is pretty good
 277 17:53:27 <sgk_>	i never did too much text though, mainly the occasional search
 278 17:53:29 <garyo>	Cool.
 279 17:53:34 <sgk_>	not much email
 280 17:53:43 <garyo>	I'm a big mobile emailer.
 281 17:53:50 <garyo>	G1 keyboard++
 282 17:54:04 <sgk_>	yeah, my wife got a droid and the keyboard is really disappointing
 283 17:51:25 <GregNoel>	then 2518 also defer?
 284 17:52:02 <garyo>	2518: should we have issues track SEPs, or just close the issue and refer to the SEP?
 285 17:53:29 <garyo>	As for 2518, I'd like to close issues that are SEPs, and point them to the SEP.  Otherwise we get commentary in two places.
 286 17:54:12 <GregNoel>	2518, I'd prefer to have one issue to track a SEP, and mark the others as dups.
 287 17:54:25 <sgk_>	agree w/greg re: an issue to track SEP progress
 288 17:54:39 <sgk_>	either make a SEP keyword, or an SEP subcomponent
 289 17:54:44 <garyo>	OK, as long as we link both ways.
 290 17:54:53 <garyo>	SEP <--> issue
 291 17:55:02 <GregNoel>	I wrote Cem to see if he'll open an issue; if not, I'll do it.
 292 17:55:16 <garyo>	thanks, sounds good.
 293 17:55:35 <GregNoel>	sgk_, good idea; probably a keyword, but I'll think on it and propose something.
 294 17:56:33 <sgk_>	okay, so 2518:  close w/bi-directional reference to SEP
 295 17:56:44 <garyo>	+
 296 17:56:50 <sgk_>	2519:  1.3 p1 bill
 297 17:56:54 <GregNoel>	2519, 1.3 p1 Bill
 298 17:57:01 <garyo>	and 2519 is 1.3 p1 bill?  (Why is this p1?)
 299 17:57:17 <GregNoel>	because it's really trivial?
 300 17:57:18 <sgk_>	p2?  do i hear p2?
 301 17:57:33 <GregNoel>	either is fine with me
 302 17:57:34 <garyo>	I'd prefer that at this point.
 303 17:57:35 <sgk_>	i'd go with p2 just to preserve p1 for really burn-down-the-house things
 304 17:57:45 <garyo>	especially for 1.3 bugs.
 305 17:57:45 <GregNoel>	works, done
 306 17:58:15 <GregNoel>	(nominal goal)
 307 17:57:55 <sgk_>	2520:  2.1 p2 garyo?
 308 17:58:13 <garyo>	sure, looks like it should be mine
 309 17:57:58 <sgk_>	thnx
 310 17:58:36 <GregNoel>	ok, done
 311 17:59:11 <GregNoel>	Not enough comments; defer?
 312 17:59:27 <sgk_>	defer
 313 17:59:29 <GregNoel>	that was 2521
 314 17:59:47 <sgk_>	right
 315 17:59:50 <garyo>	I haven't looked this far yet
 316 17:59:52 <garyo>	sorry
 317 17:59:56 <sgk_>	np
 318 18:00:12 <sgk_>	looking ahead for consensus...
 319 18:00:16 <sgk_>	2524 is on obvious dup
 320 18:00:38 <sgk_>	defer the rest?
 321 18:01:02 <garyo>	I think so.
 322 18:01:05 <GregNoel>	OK with me
 323 18:01:10 <sgk_>	cool
 324 18:01:15 <sgk_>	good work tonight
 325 18:01:38 <GregNoel>	Yes, and there should be fewer than 20 next time (assuming it's two weeks)
 326 18:01:57 <sgk_>	that's put us in the week between christmas and new years
 327 18:02:06 <sgk_>	okay by me, but are you two available?
 328 18:02:05 <garyo>	I'll be around.
 329 18:02:09 <GregNoel>	so will I
 330 18:02:14 <sgk_>	let's go for it then
 331 18:02:26 <GregNoel>	agreed
 332 18:02:28 <garyo>	good.
 333 18:02:45 <garyo>	see you around then... and have a great Christmas!
 334 18:03:05 <GregNoel>	right, you two too (to?)
 335 18:03:13 <sgk_>	and both of you as well
 336 18:03:22 <GregNoel>	g'night
 337 18:03:28 *	garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has left #scons
 338 18:03:31 <sgk_>	GregNoel:  thanks to your team for the job they did on Dallas...  :-)
 339 18:03:58 <GregNoel>	Still worrysome; Denver could catch up, as we did last year.
 340 18:03:35 <sgk_>	later
 341 18:04:18 <GregNoel>	But we'll keep trying.
 342 18:04:20 <GregNoel>	cul
 343 18:04:24 <sgk_>	l8r
 344 18:04:33 *	You have been marked as being away
 345 18:04:34 *	sgk_ (n=sgk@67.218.107.243) has left #scons
 346 

BugParty/IrcLog2009-12-15 (last edited 2009-12-16 16:46:11 by ip68-7-77-81)