Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   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)