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 16:49:01 *	Jason_at_Intel (n=chatzill@12.18.240.224) has joined #scons
   2 16:56:31 *	You are no longer marked as being away
   3 16:56:47 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, you with us for the bug party?
   4 16:58:14 <loonycyborg>	GregNoel: What can I add to it? Besides you always have them when I should be sleeping :P
   5 16:59:53 <GregNoel>	Sleep?  What's that?
   6 17:00:23 <sgk>	that's that thing other people do where they close their eyes and don't move for long periods of time
   7 17:00:27 <sgk>	or so i've heard
   8 17:00:27 <GregNoel>	And the answer to your question is that you have a better perspective on what the users are seeing than any of us here.
   9 17:01:01 <GregNoel>	s/seeing/wanting, needing, desiring, .../
  10 17:01:50 <sgk>	no sign of bdbaddog and garyo was sounding pretty iffy...  :-(
  11 17:02:17 <GregNoel>	Gary said he'd likely be late, so I'm not panicking yet.  yet.
  12 17:06:00 <Jason_at_Intel>	are we waiting for Steve?
  13 17:07:01 <sgk>	i'm here
  14 17:07:13 <Jason_at_Intel>	right :-)
  15 17:07:14 <sgk>	just under a different (officially registered) nick
  16 17:10:06 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, can you open the "current issues" spreadsheet?  There's a link from the BugParty wiki page.
  17 17:11:54 <GregNoel>	And also the current issuezilla page; there's also a link from the BugParty page.  I keep them in different tabs in my browser so I can flip back and forth readily.
  18 17:13:41 <loonycyborg>	GregNoel: I've opened them.
  19 17:13:53 <GregNoel>	Steven, should we start?  It looks like there's close to consensus on the first few; that will give Gary a chance to arrive.
  20 17:14:12 <sgk>	sounds good, let's go
  21 17:14:47 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, the easiest way to follow in issuezilla is to click on the "long format" button
  22 17:14:38 <sgk>	2071:  consensus 2.0 p0 sk
  23 17:14:50 <GregNoel>	done
  24 17:16:10 <sgk>	question about the license (to see if anyone has an opinion)
  25 17:16:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	what does this mean?
  26 17:16:37 <Jason_at_Intel>	is this going to cause a problem for me and Parts add on for Scons?
  27 17:16:40 <sgk>	sorry, mean release forms for code
  28 17:17:28 <Jason_at_Intel>	as in legal forms?
  29 17:17:46 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  to avoid possible legal hassles, we should really have some paper showing it's legal to take code
  30 17:18:00 <GregNoel>	"contributed code"
  31 17:18:01 <sgk>	contributed code
  32 17:18:03 <sgk>	right
  33 17:18:20 <sgk>	we actually have a draft of an assignment that I used for a bit years ago
  34 17:18:28 <sgk>	something I scraped together from other examples
  35 17:18:53 <sgk>	probably full of IANAL holes
  36 17:18:23 <Jason_at_Intel>	As I understand it legally you just need a .lic file shipped with the license
  37 17:18:27 <Jason_at_Intel>	like i have in Parts
  38 17:19:01 <Jason_at_Intel>	Or so I was told by Intel Lawyers
  39 17:19:19 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  that's fine for you distributing Parts
  40 17:19:32 <sgk>	the question is if the SCons Foundation were to incorporate Parts into SCons
  41 17:19:44 <sgk>	if we don't have paper from you and Intel saying it's okay
  42 17:20:04 <sgk>	then legally we'd be open to getting sued for improperly redistributing your IP
  43 17:20:03 <Jason_at_Intel>	I see
  44 17:20:17 <Jason_at_Intel>	course the point of Parts it to be added to SCons
  45 17:20:41 <Jason_at_Intel>	right... you have that OK
  46 17:20:55 <Jason_at_Intel>	I thought gave you an e-mail orginally with all that
  47 17:21:17 <sgk>	believe so, but we haven't been regular about getting this from contributors
  48 17:21:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	Everything in Parts is for Scons to take and use as they like
  49 17:21:34 <sgk>	current agreement basically says you have to give code to scons
  50 17:21:39 <sgk>	which makes some corporate lawyers nervous
  51 17:21:59 <Jason_at_Intel>	sure..  I understand
  52 17:22:19 <sgk>	our lawyer (last I talked) said since we're MIT [license] we could get by with just having contributors license their code to SCons under the same MIT terms we use
  53 17:22:29 <sgk>	so contributors still retain ownership
  54 17:22:20 <Jason_at_Intel>	if "we" needed to clarify anything here let me know
  55 17:22:46 <Jason_at_Intel>	sort of why we released under MIT
  56 17:22:57 <Jason_at_Intel>	normally Intel would have wanted a BSD
  57 17:23:12 <GregNoel>	to proceed, 2509, 1.3 p1 Gary +doc
  58 17:23:22 <sgk>	2509:  done
  59 17:23:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	K
  60 17:23:33 <GregNoel>	2518
  61 17:23:54 <sgk>	you okay with the other consensus?
  62 17:23:55 <GregNoel>	I'll make it a dup of 2536
  63 17:25:11 <sgk>	2518: done
  64 17:25:17 <GregNoel>	2521
  65 17:25:36 <GregNoel>	I'll go with the flow
  66 17:25:43 <sgk>	2521:  ditto, research p2 bdbaddog
  67 17:25:48 <GregNoel>	done
  68 17:25:58 <GregNoel>	2522
  69 17:26:08 <sgk>	2.x p4 okay w/you?
  70 17:26:34 <GregNoel>	Already too much in 2.x; 3.x?
  71 17:26:42 <sgk>	fine with me
  72 17:26:48 <GregNoel>	3.x p3?
  73 17:27:00 <sgk>	+1
  74 17:27:02 <GregNoel>	done
  75 17:27:24 <sgk>	2523:  2.x p3 +symlink +sconf_revamp
  76 17:27:28 <GregNoel>	2523 2.x p3
  77 17:27:36 <GregNoel>	er, sure, we agree
  78 17:28:27 <GregNoel>	2531, this came up in the mailing list today
  79 17:28:52 <GregNoel>	I'll go with the flow; future is OK.
  80 17:27:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	is the auto config going to get redone in 2.x
  81 17:28:32 <Jason_at_Intel>	or better yet are the symlink nodes going to be handed by SCons?
  82 17:29:27 <GregNoel>	Already in train.
  83 17:28:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	moving on
  84 17:29:08 <Jason_at_Intel>	you would need to redo the taskmaster
  85 17:29:33 <Jason_at_Intel>	and the task queue
  86 17:29:46 <sgk>	2531:  future p2
  87 17:29:50 <GregNoel>	done
  88 17:29:54 <Jason_at_Intel>	agreed
  89 17:30:26 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  all of it needs attention
  90 17:30:36 <sgk>	I'm hoping to get guidance from you all on what's top priority for my time
  91 17:30:44 <sgk>	instead of ending up all over the map like I usually do...
  92 17:30:12 <GregNoel>	2532
  93 17:30:39 <GregNoel>	Steven, you want it?
  94 17:30:56 <sgk>	2532:  2.x p2 sk
  95 17:31:06 <GregNoel>	I don't like it that far out, but I'm willing to try.
  96 17:31:17 <sgk>	you'd like it sooner than 2.x?
  97 17:31:28 <Jason_at_Intel>	is this a regression? (2532)
  98 17:31:44 <GregNoel>	No, I don't like something with your name on it that far out, for precisely the reasons you just said.
  99 17:31:57 <sgk>	right
 100 17:32:11 *	sgk goes to re-read the issue...
 101 17:32:39 <GregNoel>	Maybe assign it to Gary for research and recommendations.
 102 17:34:12 <GregNoel>	Steven, we lose you?
 103 17:34:26 <sgk>	no, was off taking a look at the code
 104 17:34:55 <GregNoel>	Maybe assign it to Gary for research and recommendations.
 105 17:35:07 <Jason_at_Intel>	so 2532.. research it?
 106 17:35:16 <GregNoel>	Gary for research and recommendations?
 107 17:35:46 <sgk>	no, give it to me, i think I just figured out a pretty simple fix
 108 17:35:55 <GregNoel>	OK, done
 109 17:36:09 <GregNoel>	what milestone and priority?
 110 17:36:11 <sgk>	we should handle that like we do the other allowable exceptions in substitution
 111 17:36:15 <sgk>	2.1 p2
 112 17:36:18 <GregNoel>	done
 113 17:36:35 <GregNoel>	2533, should be 2.1 p3 garyo
 114 17:36:49 <Jason_at_Intel>	2533... this seem to be a bug in how the win32 installer is made... ... user has to elevate it to run it
 115 17:37:10 <Jason_at_Intel>	or the installer has to be made to get elevation by the system
 116 17:37:32 <sgk>	2.1 p3 garyo
 117 17:37:32 <sgk>	done
 118 17:37:37 <GregNoel>	done
 119 17:38:11 <GregNoel>	2534
 120 17:38:30 <sgk>	i'm okay with doc+test p3
 121 17:38:43 <GregNoel>	milestone?
 122 17:39:13 <GregNoel>	And is node_class=None the right solution?
 123 17:40:09 <sgk>	looking...
 124 17:41:44 <sgk>	sheesh, who designed this API?
 125 17:42:05 <GregNoel>	Er, that would be you?
 126 17:42:11 <sgk>	yep... :-)
 127 17:42:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	SEP for cleaned on API are needed
 128 17:42:39 <Jason_at_Intel>	;-)
 129 17:42:46 <loonycyborg>	Scanner api indeed seems kinda weird.
 130 17:42:54 <sgk>	I'm confused because the default is actually Entry, not File
 131 17:43:04 <sgk>	which normally means that returning a Dir should be okay
 132 17:43:27 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I agree...  So why's it fail?
 133 17:43:49 <sgk>	+1 re: a SEP to clean up APIs
 134 17:44:07 <sgk>	ah
 135 17:44:19 <GregNoel>	Who would write the SEP?  Or should there be more than one?
 136 17:44:28 <sgk>	more than one
 137 17:44:47 <sgk>	one per area of cleanup, probably
 138 17:45:11 <sgk>	okay, i'm taking it back, i think 2534 needs research
 139 17:45:28 <loonycyborg>	I'd prefer if a scanner always was a function taking node, returning list of nodes.
 140 17:46:11 <sgk>	loonycyborg:  that would be a step in a more sane direction, but it's a little more complicated
 141 17:46:28 <sgk>	because a scanner is really conceptually attached to an edge in a DAG, not a node
 142 17:46:41 <GregNoel>	... and there are some other considerations
 143 17:47:31 <GregNoel>	but an API that ran a function with an upstream node would go a long way toward solving a number of problems.
 144 17:47:18 <sgk>	re: 2534, need to figure out where the File lookup is coming from
 145 17:47:49 <GregNoel>	OK, who?  not you?
 146 17:48:51 <sgk>	me... not me... me... not me...
 147 17:49:12 <sgk>	i dunno
 148 17:47:50 <loonycyborg>	Probably api is like that due to taking specifics of scanning c/c++ files in account, e.g. search path etc.
 149 17:48:24 <GregNoel>	API would need an Environment, but that's a secondary consideration.
 150 17:48:24 <loonycyborg>	But you could just make a canned scanner for that case..
 151 17:49:05 <GregNoel>	loonycyborg, caching becomes a problem.
 152 17:49:22 <GregNoel>	sgk, decision, or bypass?
 153 17:49:42 <Jason_at_Intel>	research seem to be best
 154 17:49:44 <sgk>	let's defer until next week
 155 17:49:55 <sgk>	it'd be sane to have someone else research
 156 17:49:57 <GregNoel>	done
 157 17:50:10 <GregNoel>	2535
 158 17:50:26 <Jason_at_Intel>	I have this working in Parts
 159 17:50:32 <Jason_at_Intel>	you can take my code for this
 160 17:50:44 <sgk>	2535:  1.3 p1 garyo
 161 17:50:55 <GregNoel>	2535, I don't have a clue
 162 17:50:56 <Jason_at_Intel>	but gary is best guy for this
 163 17:51:08 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  could you update the issue with that info re: code in parts, so he'll see it when he looks?
 164 17:51:25 <Jason_at_Intel>	sure...
 165 17:51:24 <GregNoel>	I'll resist 1.3
 166 17:51:55 <GregNoel>	We should be cutting it next week, unless there's a regression in the checkpoint.
 167 17:52:33 <sgk>	re: 1.3, is that on a separate branch or is it on trunk still?
 168 17:53:00 *	sgk is worried that he's potentially messing up 1.3 with recent checkins...
 169 17:53:18 <GregNoel>	I think you did a rebase recently; that should be the candidate
 170 17:53:36 <GregNoel>	If it's not, it should be twiddled so that it is
 171 17:54:41 <GregNoel>	Were you the one to release the checkpoint?  If so, which branch did you use?
 172 17:55:05 <sgk>	bdbaddog did
 173 17:55:13 <sgk>	that's right, we have the checkpoint branch for that... duh
 174 17:55:48 <sgk>	so 2.1 p1 garyo?
 175 17:55:51 <sgk>	for 2535?
 176 17:56:38 <GregNoel>	p1 or p2?  I don't think it's p1-urgent
 177 17:57:09 <sgk>	good point, p2
 178 17:57:18 <sgk>	can be escalated if it starts burning anyone
 179 17:57:49 <GregNoel>	done
 180 17:58:12 <GregNoel>	Should we go on to your research issues?
 181 17:58:24 <Jason_at_Intel>	added notes of basic code
 182 17:58:32 <sgk>	sure, let's just hit obvious ones for now (consensus, etc.)
 183 17:58:42 <GregNoel>	I think we should settle the lawyer issues; don't know about the rest
 184 17:58:49 <sgk>	2130:  2.0 p0 sk
 185 17:59:06 <GregNoel>	1910, no consensus; bypass
 186 17:59:16 <GregNoel>	2130, yes
 187 17:59:31 <GregNoel>	(I'll really make them p1)
 188 17:59:42 <sgk>	crap, i thought I went through these
 189 17:59:51 <sgk>	obviously I didn't
 190 17:59:48 <Jason_at_Intel>	ideally this is just asking for a license to be added in the documentation
 191 18:00:04 <GregNoel>	765, 2.x p2 garyo
 192 18:00:05 <sgk>	yeah, just need to stamp it with the appropriate creative commons license
 193 18:00:27 <sgk>	765 done
 194 18:00:35 <GregNoel>	2361 bypass
 195 18:00:59 <GregNoel>	780 bypass
 196 18:01:04 <Jason_at_Intel>	I need to do a SEP for packaging
 197 18:01:26 <GregNoel>	914, bypass reluctantly
 198 18:01:40 <GregNoel>	1187 bypass
 199 18:01:52 <GregNoel>	1745 bypass
 200 18:02:12 <GregNoel>	1883 bypass (dup?)
 201 18:04:59 <GregNoel>	None of the rest have enough comments...
 202 18:05:10 <sgk>	yep, sorry about that
 203 18:02:03 <sgk>	914:  probably wontfix at this point
 204 18:02:19 <sgk>	it's been superceded by the stuff I copped from Chromium
 205 18:02:37 <GregNoel>	your choice
 206 18:03:17 <sgk>	re: reluctantly:  is there specific functionality you had in mind that you wanted from 914?
 207 18:04:12 <GregNoel>	No, but the XML output in a standardized format is a good idea.
 208 18:04:21 <GregNoel>	I don't know what you added from Chromium
 209 18:04:48 <sgk>	hmm, what if we just mark it future so it doesn't fall off the radar screen?
 210 18:04:51 <sgk>	that's a little lame, but...
 211 18:05:08 <GregNoel>	Future is on the radar screen?
 212 18:05:19 <sgk>	fair point
 213 18:05:31 <sgk>	it's less off the radar screen than WONTFIX...
 214 18:05:31 <GregNoel>	bypass until next time
 215 18:05:34 <Jason_at_Intel>	I can't seem to edit the file so i have been unable to add comments
 216 18:05:58 <sgk>	Jason_at_Intel:  oh, I meant to update the issue at tigris.org, not in the spreadsheet
 217 18:06:03 <sgk>	if that's what you were trying to do
 218 18:06:19 <sgk>	the spreadsheet is just to try to streamline the triage process in these meetings
 219 18:06:34 <sgk>	it's not for long-term tracking of info on specific bugs
 220 18:06:43 <Jason_at_Intel>	No i added comment on the bug at tigris
 221 18:07:01 <sgk>	okay, thanks
 222 18:08:26 <GregNoel>	decision on 914?
 223 18:09:22 <GregNoel>	(we've run over and I don't know if there's anything to discuss about 1.3)
 224 18:10:02 <Jason_at_Intel>	Steve?
 225 18:11:04 <sgk>	914:  defer to next time
 226 18:11:11 <sgk>	along with rest of research
 227 18:10:21 <Jason_at_Intel>	2347 will be fixed by taskmaster NG?
 228 18:10:35 <Jason_at_Intel>	greg?
 229 18:12:04 *	GregNoel brb
 230 18:14:59 <GregNoel>	back; 2347 not related to taskmaster; related to how symlinks should work: 'value' of symlink is string reference, but has to be worked out so read and write work.
 231 18:15:49 <Jason_at_Intel>	Greg.. thanks!
 232 18:35:57 *	GregNoel just had his wife suggest that it would be a good thing to come to dinner...
 233 18:36:21 <sgk>	GregNoel:  thanks, say hello to your wife
 234 18:36:38 <GregNoel>	wilco, cul
 235 18:36:49 *	You have been marked as being away
 236 18:37:00 <Jason_at_Intel>	later greg!
 237 18:36:33 <sgk>	i should go, too -- i'm still at work and have to buy a printer on the way home
 238 18:37:53 <Jason_at_Intel>	well guess you got to go.. I should go help take care of my kids
 239 18:45:30 <sgk>	gotta get going, catch you guys later
 240 18:45:44 <Jason_at_Intel>	ok later!
 241 18:45:51 *	sgk (n=sgk@nat/google/x-rfygfhizlqsajbfq) has left #scons
 242 18:46:03 <Jason_at_Intel>	I got to go as well
 243 18:46:07 <Jason_at_Intel>	later
 244 18:46:13 *	Jason_at_Intel has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]")
 245 

BugParty/IrcLog2010-01-05 (last edited 2010-01-17 02:31:54 by ip68-7-77-81)