1 16:49:02 * garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
2 16:53:33 * sgk (n=sgk@c-71-204-129-67.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
3 16:54:27 * Jason_at_Intel (n=chatzill@12.18.240.224) has joined #scons
4 16:54:37 <sgk> GregNoel: i'll be a bit late getting back to the meeting, ~1705 - 1710
5 16:54:48 <Jason_at_Intel> hello
6 16:55:36 <garyo> Hi folks
7 16:55:46 <Jason_at_Intel> Hi Gary!
8 17:00:52 * You are no longer marked as being away
9 17:00:58 <GregNoel> Hi, all. It's raining in San Diego and I've already had a few power fluctuations today (but no trips yet, knock on wood).
10 17:00:59 * GregNoel raps smartly on his head
11 17:00:59 <GregNoel> Ow! In any event, if I suddenly drop off-line, assume I've lost power and I'll get back as soon as I can.
12 17:01:51 <garyo> Hi Greg.
13 17:08:44 <garyo> SO folks, on to the bugs?
14 17:09:09 <sgk> hey all
15 17:09:16 <Jason_at_Intel> Hi steve!
16 17:09:21 <GregNoel> Ah, welcome back.
17 17:09:23 <garyo> Hi Steve
18 17:09:25 <GregNoel> Shall we get started? 2534 is first up.
19 17:09:43 <garyo> George Foot's comment seems apropos. Doc p3?
20 17:10:03 <GregNoel> No, Steven thought it was a bug last time.
21 17:10:33 <garyo> OK I'm confused, the ssheet note says default type is Entry, but I think it's File.
22 17:10:43 <garyo> Steven?
23 17:10:52 <GregNoel> Steven?
24 17:10:59 <Jason_at_Intel> I thought this was to be researched
25 17:11:21 <garyo> I like that: steven, research.
26 17:11:30 <sgk> sorry, catching up on the conversation
27 17:11:35 <sgk> been a hellish day
28 17:11:40 <garyo> sorry 2 hear that
29 17:11:49 <garyo> I have a lot of those these days :-/
30 17:11:55 <sgk> ooo sick; power outage; etc.
31 17:12:29 <GregNoel> My lights just flickered, so I can empathize (not sympathize)
32 17:12:21 <sgk> 2534: think we should give it to me to research
33 17:12:25 <garyo> +1
34 17:12:37 <GregNoel> done
35 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 1910, 2361, 780, 914, 1187, 1745, 1883, 1945: bypass for lack of comments
36 17:12:50 <GregNoel> (Yes, Steven, 914 reluctantly)
37 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2058 consensus 2.0 p1 stevenknight
38 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2070 consensus 2.0 p1 stevenknight
39 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2096, I think Gary needs to agree, but otherwise consensus 2.x p4 +sconf_revamp
40 17:12:50 <GregNoel> 2249
41 17:13:27 <Jason_at_Intel> woo
42 17:14:10 <garyo> 2096: I agree, 2.x p4
43 17:14:52 <GregNoel> 2096, done
44 17:13:47 <sgk> greg re: 914
45 17:13:53 <GregNoel> yes?
46 17:13:58 <sgk> how about if we make that future p4 or something so it doesn't get lost
47 17:14:07 <sgk> agree that the general concept of XML for results is good
48 17:14:18 <sgk> but nothing is burning for it right now
49 17:14:33 <GregNoel> future p4 is off the radar, but I'll go along.
50 17:15:19 <GregNoel> 914, other consensus?
51 17:15:30 <garyo> agree w/ 914
52 17:15:32 <sgk> future p3, then
53 17:15:37 <GregNoel> done
54 17:16:05 <garyo> My Issue List query doesn't match the spreadsheet today :-/
55 17:16:58 <GregNoel> garyo, a bunch of issues from last time are still there, formerly Steven's research issues.
56 17:16:18 <sgk> 2249: research bdbaddog (since he volunteered)
57 17:16:26 <GregNoel> done
58 17:16:58 <garyo> OR: 2249: ask OP if it still happens.
59 17:17:34 <sgk> 2249: that's a reasonable suggestion for the update
60 17:17:44 <garyo> It's a year old and vs_revamp is better.
61 17:17:49 <sgk> yep
62 17:18:11 <sgk> 2249: research bdbaddog, comment suggests asking OP
63 17:18:17 <garyo> +1
64 17:18:23 <GregNoel> done
65 17:18:39 <GregNoel> 2304
66 17:18:39 <sgk> 2304: research SK
67 17:18:42 <Jason_at_Intel> I should comment on 2304, I might have a work around for this one, but i have to finish the testing of this in Parts yet
68 17:19:19 <GregNoel> I don't believe that's possible
69 17:18:59 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: sounds good
70 17:19:17 <garyo> OK, let's assign it to jason to research?
71 17:19:33 <Jason_at_Intel> it will probably need a patch to the File object
72 17:19:45 <garyo> ???
73 17:19:45 <sgk> GregNoel: re your comment: agreed we may not be able to build on top of the locked executable
74 17:19:51 <GregNoel> rebuilding a program as the same time you're running it is NOT a good idea, no matter where or when.
75 17:20:00 <sgk> but we should handle the error gracefully and not die
76 17:20:04 <garyo> Of course not on Windows, but at least interactive mode could recover.
77 17:20:10 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree with that.. but the system should not die
78 17:20:24 <sgk> you should be able to stay in interactive mode and build other things
79 17:20:33 <sgk> or rebuild the same executable next time
80 17:20:31 <garyo> ok we all agree. research jason?
81 17:20:31 <GregNoel> On *IX, the file is overwritten, so the code will change out from under the running program. NOT a good idea.
82 17:20:36 <Jason_at_Intel> Scons dies with the unlink Action()
83 17:21:01 <garyo> Greg: on *IX I do this all the time, multiple times daily. And yes, sometimes I pay the price. :-)
84 17:21:23 <sgk> agreed, but people do things like this, so the question is how do we want to handle it?
85 17:21:26 <GregNoel> consensus?
86 17:21:37 <sgk> research Jason_at_Intel if he's up for it
87 17:21:39 <sgk> otherwise SK
88 17:21:47 <garyo> Recover as best as possible, with build failure msg. Just the same as "out of disk space."
89 17:22:01 <Jason_at_Intel> basically
90 17:22:11 <garyo> jason, will you take it on?
91 17:22:16 <Jason_at_Intel> Sure
92 17:22:19 <GregNoel> OK
93 17:22:20 <garyo> ok, done
94 17:22:25 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel++
95 17:22:39 <GregNoel> 2347 consensus 2.x p3 +symlink
96 17:22:39 <GregNoel> 2536
97 17:22:57 <sgk> i like greg's suggestion of research OP
98 17:23:17 <GregNoel> so do I, or I wouldn't have suggested it. {;-}
99 17:23:36 <garyo> Yeah, makes sense 2 me too.
100 17:23:39 <sgk> done
101 17:23:49 <GregNoel> done
102 17:23:53 <GregNoel> 2537 FIXED (thanks, Steven!)
103 17:23:53 <GregNoel> 2538 I don't like anytime issues assigned to Steven, but I'll go with the flow
104 17:24:06 <sgk> agreed on both counts
105 17:24:21 <sgk> done
106 17:24:25 <sgk> ?
107 17:24:36 <GregNoel> consensus?
108 17:24:50 <garyo> ok
109 17:24:56 <GregNoel> done
110 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2540 FIXED (thanks, Steven!)
111 17:24:59 <GregNoel> (We've achieved the minimal target for today; congratulations to us!)
112 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2541, 2542, 2545: bypass for lack of comments
113 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2546 consensus WONTFIX
114 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2547, 2548, 2549: bypass for lack of comments
115 17:24:59 <GregNoel> (We've achieved the nominal target for today; I suppose congratulations are due, but it seems rather empty since we'll see so many again next time.)
116 17:24:59 <GregNoel> 2550, 2551, 2552, 2553, 2554, 2555, 2556 (so close!), 2557: bypass for lack of comments
117 17:24:59 <GregNoel> And that's all for today... Is there any discussion needed about releasing 1.3? With the checkpoint released today, plan for two weeks, so about January 31st? (That is, a year late...)
118 17:25:18 <garyo> Steven, I can work that kind of thing in the bg so if it becomes a timesink let me know.
119 17:25:53 <sgk> garyo: the irc channel?
120 17:25:57 <garyo> sgk: yes.
121 17:26:22 <sgk> cool, i'll take you up on that if it gets thorny
122 17:26:28 <garyo> np
123 17:25:45 <garyo> Greg: I think since this ckpoint is very minimally different from the last except doc, a week is enough. Just my opinion though.
124 17:26:59 <GregNoel> garyo, yes, but only if it's really pushed on the mailing lists to get the maximal feedback.
125 17:27:18 <garyo> I'm itching to get 1.3 out. I think we've checkpointed it to death. Greg: great idea re: ML pushing. I will do that.
126 17:27:22 <bdbaddog> Greetings.. sorry I'm late..
127 17:27:53 <garyo> Hey Bill! Good job getting both checkpoints out!
128 17:27:40 <Jason_at_Intel> so what is holding up 1.3
129 17:27:52 <Jason_at_Intel> I am sort of for making it happen
130 17:27:36 <sgk> should we try to look at some of the issues that have two consensus comments?
131 17:27:54 <GregNoel> sgk, cherry-pick away...
132 17:28:02 <sgk> if others add "verbal" consensus we won't have to revisit so many
133 17:29:09 <GregNoel> that was the point of the fusillade, so if you want to try to get verbal consensus to get rid of them, I'm all for it.
134 17:28:18 * sgk scrolls back in the spreadsheet...
135 17:29:08 <sgk> 2547 and 2548: future p1 +java
136 17:29:10 <sgk> any objections?
137 17:29:56 <GregNoel> 2547, 2548, I'll go along; any others?
138 17:29:37 <sgk> hang on, table 2547 and 2548, let's finish the 1.3 discussion first
139 17:30:36 <garyo> 2547,2548: I'm fine w/ future p1 +java. sigh. :-)
140 17:31:04 <GregNoel> 2547, 2548, that's three; done
141 17:28:20 <garyo> Jason: we just need to let Bill's last checkpoint stew for long enough to make sure it's not got horrible bugs.
142 17:28:45 <Jason_at_Intel> ok
143 17:29:10 <garyo> That's why I say 1 week, not the usual 2. Bill, opinion on how long to let the checkpoint stew?
144 17:29:43 <bdbaddog> We going with 2 weeks again (of stew time)? I'd be up for shorter, but I don't remember what changes between last checkpoint and this one was, if mostly doc, then 1week is good by me.
145 17:30:05 <sgk> 1 week seems good to me
146 17:30:12 <garyo> I put in one significant fix to detect 64 vs. 32 bit OS default. That's it I think.
147 17:30:16 <bdbaddog> O.k. so 1/24/2010
148 17:30:30 <sgk> i'm anticipating more users and problem reports when we officially release 1.3 regardless of whether it's 1 or 2 weeks
149 17:30:46 <garyo> sgk: I agree, that's another reason to get it out sooner.
150 17:30:57 <sgk> at this point an extra week soaking 1.3 checkpoints isn't the crucial difference between success and failure
151 17:30:57 <garyo> So we can do 1.3.1 sooner :-/
152 17:31:20 <sgk> right, we should be ready to jump on 1.3 bug reports and prep 1.3.1
153 17:31:24 <sgk> my gut says about a month after
154 17:31:44 <garyo> sgk: maybe, let's see.
155 17:31:23 <garyo> ok, is that consensus? Next weekend is 1.3?
156 17:31:56 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree... get 1.3 out earlier and let a 1.3.1 fix issues found in 1.3.. this way more people will test it
157 17:31:57 <garyo> But we can start on the 2.0 work immediately.
158 17:32:01 <sgk> i'll be happy to be wrong and go straight to 2.0... :-)
159 17:32:12 <GregNoel> yep
160 17:32:20 <bdbaddog> so at 1.3 release we create a 1.3 branch?
161 17:32:32 <bdbaddog> and trunk becomes pre-2.0 ?
162 17:32:32 <GregNoel> Er, SVN doesn't work that way.
163 17:32:45 <GregNoel> No need to branch until you need it.
164 17:32:56 <GregNoel> If you know what I mean.
165 17:33:24 <sgk> either way it'd have the same effect
166 17:33:31 <bdbaddog> so just cp and then branch from that if needed?
167 17:33:35 <garyo> Sure, but we might as well create it when we do 1.3 so people have an official place to work on 1.3.1 rather than making the first person to fix something have to create it.
168 17:33:45 <sgk> i can see an argument for branching right away because I doubt we'll get through a big change like vs_revamp in 1.3 unscathed
169 17:33:46 <garyo> That's how I usually do it.
170 17:33:59 <sgk> what garyo said
171 17:34:01 <Jason_at_Intel> it seems we woudl want to make a 1.3 branch and have truck be 2.0.. and make a 1.3.1 branch we add patches to for a 1.3.1 drop
172 17:34:06 <bdbaddog> +1 for branching 1.3 at 1.3 release.
173 17:34:20 <sgk> okay, let's go for it (scm orthodoxy be damned... :-))
174 17:34:21 <garyo> Just cp trunk to tag, then cp tag to branch. And yes, trunk becomes pre-2.0.
175 17:34:25 <bdbaddog> there'd be a 1.3 release, and a 1.3 branch
176 17:34:34 <bdbaddog> +1 garyo's description.
177 17:35:01 <GregNoel> So branch trunk to branches/1.3.fixes or some such? Sure, why not? Branches are cheap.
178 17:35:30 <GregNoel> ... or branch release? That should be discussed.
179 17:34:55 <bdbaddog> so then BB does trunk? and/or 1.3?
180 17:35:27 <garyo> what's BB, Bill?
181 17:35:32 <bdbaddog> BuildBot
182 17:35:36 <garyo> ah yes.
183 17:35:49 <garyo> Good question.
184 17:36:06 <garyo> Is it realistic to want both?
185 17:36:19 <GregNoel> BB already does trunk, checkpoint, release, and branches/*, so what are you saying?
186 17:36:40 <garyo> Really? I didn't know that. In that case, just carry on.
187 17:37:07 <sgk> yeah, GregNoel added mutliple branch support
188 17:37:25 <sgk> surprised me too, but it tested all of bdbaddog's recent checkpoint patches
189 17:39:02 <bdbaddog> Way to go Greg!
190 17:37:31 <garyo> Cool, is that just in our BB or sent upstream?
191 17:38:02 <GregNoel> It's one of the examples in the BB manual, so I think they know about it.
192 17:38:13 <garyo> good.
193 17:38:31 <garyo> OK, sounds like most of a plan!
194 17:38:44 <bdbaddog> :)
195 17:38:37 <sgk> go 1.3!
196 17:39:01 <GregNoel> Geaux Saints!
197 17:38:58 <garyo> Yeah! And thanks bdbaddog for all the grunt work on the checkpoints!
198 17:39:15 <sgk> okay, and we have consensus on 2547, 2548
199 17:39:20 <sgk> on to more of the issues?
200 17:39:34 <bdbaddog> sure.
201 17:39:36 <GregNoel> any others you want to cherry-pick?
202 17:40:17 <garyo> how about 2556?
203 17:40:17 <sgk> 2556: send it back to OP for test case?
204 17:40:23 <sgk> jinx
205 17:40:42 <garyo> OK, 2556 came from a ML discussion. I'll ask him to paste in the testcase.
206 17:41:56 <GregNoel> 2556, should we close it and ask him to reopen when he adds the test case?
207 17:42:14 <sgk> 2556: sure, that works
208 17:42:14 <garyo> Nah, I'll just comment on the tkt as is.
209 17:42:37 <GregNoel> (is there such a thing as a reverse jinx?)
210 17:42:23 <garyo> I asked him to report it anyway.
211 17:42:27 <sgk> oh, okay
212 17:41:17 <GregNoel> done
213 17:40:27 <Jason_at_Intel> 2542?
214 17:40:40 <sgk> and 2557: conensus 2.1 p2 rob?
215 17:41:13 <garyo> +1 on 2557.
216 17:41:17 <GregNoel> done
217 17:41:29 <sgk> cool
218 17:41:40 <sgk> i have another topic if we're (nominally) done with issues for this week
219 17:41:51 <garyo> shoot
220 17:42:48 <sgk> next topic: scrapping runtest.py in favor of using unittest as the harness
221 17:43:06 <GregNoel> Ulp.
222 17:43:28 <sgk> turned out to be pretty easy to do
223 17:43:51 <sgk> or at least to prototype
224 17:43:57 <GregNoel> How would it work?
225 17:44:09 <sgk> well, that's why i want to discuss it
226 17:44:29 <Jason_at_Intel> you mean the python unit test lib?
227 17:44:12 <garyo> sgk: Can you reuse all the stuff in QMTest/ dir? There's a lot of value in there.
228 17:44:31 <garyo> (e.g. TestSCons.py, TestCmd.py)
229 17:44:39 <sgk> garyo: yeah, that stuff all stays
230 17:44:50 <garyo> ok, good.
231 17:44:56 <sgk> those are basically test fixtures
232 17:45:11 <sgk> what i prototyped was a simple shotgun marriage
233 17:45:27 <sgk> where unittest still calls out (using subprocess) to execute individual test scripts like today
234 17:45:35 <sgk> but it reports the results back using unittest conventions
235 17:45:46 <sgk> so it looks like a python unittest for reporting
236 17:45:55 <sgk> but is (at least for now) still just executing scripts
237 17:46:04 <bdbaddog> does that enable/block parallel testing?
238 17:46:23 <sgk> unfortunately, it looks like unittest itself doesn't enable parallel testing
239 17:46:27 <sgk> so it's orthogonal
240 17:46:48 <sgk> i.e. this change doesn't make parallel testing more or less likely
241 17:46:46 <garyo> So the main benefit is prettier output?
242 17:47:14 <sgk> yeah, this is why I was a little... hesitant... when the idea of unittest seemed to get a positive reaction from you guys a few weeks back
243 17:47:19 <sgk> (iirc)
244 17:47:29 <Jason_at_Intel> Do you have thie prototyped checked in?
245 17:47:45 <GregNoel> Hmmm... I'd have to think about this. Why don't you add it to SConsTestingRevisions in the wiki?
246 17:47:33 <bdbaddog> upside is less infrastructure to maintain?
247 17:47:49 <sgk> right, runtest.py is all homebrew, this leverages unittest
248 17:48:16 <sgk> but that doesn't necessarily seem like a really compelling reason to switch
249 17:48:06 <Jason_at_Intel> I coudl use it in Parts i think to handle some cases that are hard to handle with a straight unittest code
250 17:48:27 <garyo> runtest.py is only 834 lines, not huge.
251 17:48:31 <GregNoel> You'd still need a test runner, but it wouldn't be as complex... I still need to think about it.
252 17:48:55 <sgk> okay, the code isn't much, I'll add it to the wiki and send out something to the ML for discussion
253 17:49:12 <bdbaddog> sounds good. then we can play with it (time allowing)..
254 17:49:16 <garyo> sgk: my biggest beef with QMtest was managing stdout/stderr when debugging tests (not just running them where you always want it hidden).
255 17:49:30 <GregNoel> concur
256 17:49:32 <garyo> Would unittest maybe help?
257 17:49:31 <sgk> garyo: this doesn't solve that
258 17:49:37 <garyo> oh well.
259 17:49:45 <sgk> you're still running external scripts and having to capture the output
260 17:49:51 <sgk> what I could do about that, though....
261 17:50:05 <sgk> is expose the Trace() function as a supported part of the API
262 17:50:24 <sgk> that writes to /dev/tty on POSIX and con on Windows
263 17:50:34 <sgk> so you can at least add debug prints easily
264 17:50:18 <garyo> That'd help somewhat.
265 17:50:41 <Jason_at_Intel> unittest makes it easy to set up a structure to run on a give test at a time
266 17:51:03 <garyo> runtest.py can do that too.
267 17:51:02 <sgk> okay, follow-on test discussion:
268 17:51:28 <sgk> all the in-line test code in strings
269 17:51:44 <sgk> which makes it a pain to read the test code
270 17:51:51 <sgk> and complicates going forward to Python 3.0
271 17:51:58 <garyo> plus most of them are big regexes now anyway :-)
272 17:52:17 <garyo> you have a solution?!
273 17:52:38 <sgk> yeah, i think so
274 17:52:52 <sgk> we change the unit of test granularity from individual files to directories
275 17:53:21 <sgk> each directory is a test config with the input SConstruct *.c etc. files checked in directly
276 17:52:30 <loonycyborg> sgk: btw how exactly you're planning to upgrade to python3?
277 17:52:52 <GregNoel> Hi, Sergey; thanks for being with us again!
278 17:52:54 <garyo> Hi Sergey
279 17:52:58 <sgk> Sergey++
280 17:53:13 <loonycyborg> That'll require all SConstruct files moved to python3 too.
281 17:53:23 <GregNoel> directories, erk..
282 17:53:48 <bdbaddog> That's the way I usually setup regressions for my clients.. so I'm all for that.
283 17:53:49 <garyo> radical!
284 17:54:01 <bdbaddog> A dir per test. or group of tests?
285 17:53:47 <sgk> the test script(s) within a directory have identifying prefixes
286 17:54:08 <sgk> so you can actually have multiple individual tests re-using the same config (directory)
287 17:54:32 <sgk> the test infrastructure copies the directory contents (except for test scripts and .svn directories) to the temp dir to run the test
288 17:54:41 <loonycyborg> You could as well make a full api overhaul coincide with moving to python3 :P
289 17:55:10 <sgk> loonycyborg: that's actually worth considering
290 17:55:26 <sgk> at least, maybe use it as a clean way to shed some of the cruftier parts of the current API
291 17:55:25 <garyo> sgk: I get it -- so even sub/a/b kind of things just get checked in.
292 17:55:38 <sgk> garyo: right
293 17:55:48 <sgk> i think it makes the test configurations more comprehensible
294 17:55:52 <bdbaddog> I've very tired of having to put all the files in strings in the tests..
295 17:56:00 <sgk> yep
296 17:56:12 <garyo> sgk: I think there are still some cases where files have to be dynamically created etc. but a small %age, so this would clean up a lot.
297 17:56:22 <sgk> right, it also doesn't completely solve things like updating files as an intermediate step
298 17:56:55 <garyo> But what about testing stdout/stderr? Special files to represent expected output?
299 17:57:16 <sgk> yeah, those could either be checked in as .golden files or something
300 17:57:29 <sgk> or else those can stay in-line if it makes more sense to not clutter the config
301 17:57:17 <bdbaddog> "golden" files in my industry..
302 17:57:39 <Jason_at_Intel> gold files here :-)
303 17:57:44 <sgk> i think that's less of a problem since they're (typically) not actually code
304 17:58:03 <garyo> Cool. With regex semantics I assume. I want to think about this, but it seems very sensible on the face of it.
305 17:58:17 <GregNoel> concur w/ garyo
306 17:58:32 <sgk> okay, let's let it sink in for a bit
307 17:58:40 <bdbaddog> +1 for me. I'm all for it.
308 17:58:49 <garyo> I'll pick a few tests randomly to see how they'd look.
309 17:58:51 <sgk> if we want to go forward with it, i'm looking for a read on the right priority
310 17:58:59 <GregNoel> I think adding it to the existing wiki page for testing cleanup is the first step.
311 17:59:01 <sgk> we could actually also do it incrementally
312 17:59:17 <garyo> sgk: +1
313 17:59:20 <Jason_at_Intel> incrementally ++
314 17:59:25 <GregNoel> that's why I suggest the wiki page, so we could break down what can be done first
315 17:59:36 <sgk> sure
316 17:59:44 <GregNoel> ... and add a discussion page to the wiki page...
317 17:59:53 <garyo> If you can make the test runner run these, that would be a great step.
318 17:59:50 <sgk> my rough idea for incremental is
319 18:00:03 * sgk decides to save that for the wiki page...
320 17:59:50 <bdbaddog> BTW.. are we due for a moin moin update?
321 18:00:10 <garyo> bdbaddog: are we? I can do that if needed.
322 18:00:30 <GregNoel> moin, long overdue; they're at 1.9 already...
323 18:00:45 <garyo> OK, I'll look into it in the next wk or 2.
324 18:00:50 <sgk> garyo: thnx
325 18:01:15 <GregNoel> garyo, please coordinate with me, so we can upgrade at the same time.
326 18:01:16 <Jason_at_Intel> <wishing the Tigris wiki site would be upgraded >
327 18:01:34 <garyo> Greg: will do.
328 18:01:09 <sgk> what should be my top priority right now? the legal stuff?
329 18:01:53 <garyo> Steven: what are the choices?
330 18:02:23 <GregNoel> sgk, I nominate finishing out any 1.3 stuff, then the legal stuff, then the 2.0 stuff
331 18:02:48 <sgk> legal stuff, 1.3 stuff, 2.0 stuff, test infrastructure, performance graph stuff
332 18:03:11 <Jason_at_Intel> greg++
333 18:03:11 <sgk> actually, i don't have any 1.3 issues on my list at the moment
334 18:03:32 <GregNoel> yeah, but something might appear. set the priorities now.
335 18:03:17 <garyo> ok, get the legal stuff done with. I don't think you have any significant 1.3 todos.
336 18:03:41 <garyo> GregNoel++
337 18:03:39 <sgk> oh, also string template refactoring
338 18:04:03 <GregNoel> what refactoring?
339 18:04:23 <sgk> re-doing subst() and subst_list() for performance
340 18:03:53 <garyo> 2526?
341 18:04:06 <sgk> yeah
342 18:04:27 <garyo> My opinion: too late for 1.3, it could introduce new bugs.
343 18:04:36 <sgk> using the same generatl technique of string.Template in the Python lib
344 18:04:46 <sgk> oh, definitely not that for 1.3
345 18:05:10 <sgk> don't want to derail that train
346 18:05:06 <bdbaddog> I think for 1.3, only doc bugs and regressions..
347 18:05:20 <garyo> ok, so make 2526 2.1 then.
348 18:05:51 <bdbaddog> are you on to another spreadsheet?
349 18:06:08 <garyo> (No, I just brought up all Steven's issues.)
350 18:06:15 <bdbaddog> ahh o.k.
351 18:05:56 <garyo> So I'm with Greg: any 1.3 issues, then legal stuff, then 2.0 stuff.
352 18:06:50 <sgk> okay, i think i'm set then
353 18:06:57 <garyo> excellent.
354 18:06:58 * sgk grits his teeth in anticipation of talking to lawyers
355 18:07:37 <garyo> On a totally unrelated note, my Nexus One is the most awesome pocket computing device ever made. Google ftw!
356 18:08:30 <sgk> garyo: i'm totally digging mine. the keyboard interface is good for you?
357 18:08:59 <garyo> sgk: yes, no problems at all.
358 18:07:41 <GregNoel> I'd also reconsider the 1.3 all-doc issues (upgrading the user's guide) and see if they can be done for 2.0, but have Steven parcel them out to sucke, ah, people of his choice.
359 18:08:14 <garyo> Good point Greg -- we need to move the rest of the 1.3 issues forward. Can you do that?
360 18:08:34 <GregNoel> For everything except the doc, yes, I have a policy I apply.
361 18:08:41 <garyo> Now that the doc procedure is improved I should be able to help there.
362 18:08:56 * sgk remembers that he has to write up that README...
363 18:09:35 <garyo> re: doc readme: yes please.
364 18:09:57 <sgk> k, that's probably P(-1) for me then
365 18:10:03 <sgk> the legal stuff is all P0
366 18:10:08 <GregNoel> (For what it's worth, the policy is to move the issues forward to the next point release, but bump their priority by one so they'll get more consideration at the next level.)
367 18:10:29 <garyo> Sensible.
368 18:10:30 <sgk> sounds good
369 18:11:02 <GregNoel> Is applying for a group also p0?
370 18:11:15 <sgk> i suppose so
371 18:11:28 <GregNoel> I'm in agreement then.
372 18:11:25 <garyo> Are we going to get kicked out or something if we don't apply?
373 18:11:51 <garyo> If so, then I agree. This channel works nicely.
374 18:12:02 <sgk> garyo: i don't think we're going to get kicked out
375 18:12:17 <sgk> but we're restricted in what we can do administratively
376 18:12:25 <GregNoel> garyo, no, we're grandfathered, since our channel was formed 6+ years ago, and the policy is only 4 years old.
377 18:12:46 <GregNoel> but it would be good to abide by the policy.
378 18:12:52 <sgk> it was a bit of a hassle to transfer ownership from TTimo to me because we don't fully exist under the new rules
379 18:13:05 <garyo> Makes sense to get it done then.
380 18:13:23 <GregNoel> can at least start the process to show good faith.
381 18:13:42 <sgk> BTW, GregNoel: i looked around at some other channels
382 18:14:00 <sgk> it seems like using | as the separator between sections of the topic is more the norm than -
383 18:14:10 <GregNoel> OK, wilco
384 18:14:51 * sgk has changed the topic to: SCons | building software, better | http://www.scons.org | next bug triage party is Tue 2 Feb 2010 17h00 US/Pacific
385 18:14:55 <garyo> Greg, guess your power held out today!
386 18:15:01 <GregNoel> so far...
387 18:14:50 <GregNoel> Next party on Groundhog's day?
388 18:15:15 <sgk> excellent! we can have the next bug party over and over and over again...
389 18:15:24 <garyo> :-)
390 18:15:49 <GregNoel> sgk, ++
391 18:15:36 <GregNoel> Ten points to anybody who can spell where the Groundhog's Day official celebration is held...
392 18:15:47 <sgk> Punxatawney PA
393 18:15:47 <garyo> punxatawney
394 18:16:04 <garyo> sgk: you win
395 18:16:05 <GregNoel> jinx, you guys are too good.
396 18:16:20 <garyo> I was a spelling bee kid in my youth
397 18:16:41 <Jason_at_Intel> :-) I was not :-)
398 18:17:03 <GregNoel> It's not far from where my wife grew up, so she can frustrate me by spelling it... all I can manage is punx*
399 18:16:39 <bdbaddog> And a the groudhog's name?
400 18:16:44 <sgk> Phil
401 18:16:44 <garyo> phil
402 18:16:59 <bdbaddog> :)
403 18:17:03 <Jason_at_Intel> look at the trivial buffs
404 18:17:09 <GregNoel> yes, Phill
405 18:17:16 <sgk> damn, the amount of grey matter garyo and i have devoted to this stuff is scary
406 18:17:22 <GregNoel> (two ll's I think)
407 18:17:33 <garyo> two Ls: I doubt it.
408 18:18:13 <GregNoel> oops, the wife agrees.
409 18:18:18 <GregNoel> mea culpa.
410 18:18:35 <garyo> anyway, bdbaddog: can you manage the release cycle? If so, how can I help?
411 18:19:00 <bdbaddog> as far as building and pushing the packages, no prob.
412 18:19:16 <garyo> OK, I can help w/ release announcements etc.
413 18:19:22 <bdbaddog> might need some help on the create 1.3 branch commands.
414 18:19:32 <garyo> np, just ask.
415 18:19:45 <Jason_at_Intel> Steve: code review? good time to talk ?
416 18:20:30 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: let's set up something for next week
417 18:21:11 <Jason_at_Intel> Steve.. I have a check in to sync with teh public drop yet... but that sounds good
418 18:21:24 <Jason_at_Intel> do we want anyone else to be part of this?
419 18:21:30 <Jason_at_Intel> such as Gary or Greg?
420 18:21:58 <garyo> If I can get out there I'd love to. I don't get to travel much these days... hopefully spring will slow down @ work a little.
421 18:22:05 <sgk> garyo/GregNoel/bdbaddog: any of you interested in participating in discussion of how to integrate Parts ?
422 18:22:16 <bdbaddog> for 3.0?
423 18:22:27 <Jason_at_Intel> or 2.x
424 18:22:31 <sgk> not sure, that needs discussion
425 18:22:34 <bdbaddog> :)
426 18:22:37 <Jason_at_Intel> depending on what people think
427 18:22:39 <sgk> what it should ultimately look like, time frame, etc.
428 18:22:45 <garyo> I am, especially the toolchain part of it.
429 18:22:55 <garyo> (or merge it w/ other toolchain ideas)
430 18:22:59 <sgk> right
431 18:23:16 <bdbaddog> is there a wiki page to bring me up to speed?
432 18:23:19 <sgk> k, i'm thinking we should structure it like a subproject for now?
433 18:23:24 <Jason_at_Intel> can i set up a phone conference for this.. talk is better for me
434 18:24:05 <Jason_at_Intel> I can set up one through work
435 18:24:13 <Jason_at_Intel> as this is a work task for me :-)
436 18:23:45 <bdbaddog> I hate talking.. IM is my friend.
437 18:24:05 <GregNoel> I hate talking AND typing.. Mail is my friend.
438 18:24:13 <bdbaddog> GN: :)
439 18:23:31 <garyo> skype is good
440 18:24:17 <sgk> i'm okay w/phone or skype so long as someone volunteers to take good notes
441 18:24:27 <sgk> the best thing about IM to me is the log
442 18:24:33 <garyo> That's a really good point.
443 18:24:45 <Jason_at_Intel> and that is fine.. but teh review will be slow and long
444 18:25:01 <sgk> we may want a mix of the two
445 18:25:07 <garyo> We need to prepare first so we can go faster.
446 18:25:19 <sgk> (garyo: good point re: prep)
447 18:25:10 <sgk> how about start w/voice or skype
448 18:25:35 <sgk> since the first conversations will be a little more brainstorm-y
449 18:26:02 <sgk> and (maybe) transition to irc if we start settling on things and only have to iron out details
450 18:26:01 <Jason_at_Intel> this sound reasonable... get our ducks in a row...
451 18:26:16 <garyo> ok w/ me
452 18:26:18 <sgk> over time, i mean, not within one session
453 18:26:46 <GregNoel> (YouTube, anyone? {;-})
454 18:26:59 <sgk> okay, so the action item is that Jason_at_intel and I set up a time for a voice / skype chat next week
455 18:27:07 <bdbaddog> I'd say write something up on the wiki, give us a week on email list, then conf call.
456 18:27:16 <sgk> open invitation to the conf. call
457 18:27:24 <garyo> Sounds good.
458 18:27:34 <sgk> w/approval of course
459 18:27:42 <sgk> and we'll figure out the record-keeping by then
460 18:27:51 <sgk> and try to have some agenda ahead of time
461 18:27:58 <bdbaddog> k.
462 18:28:13 <sgk> based on that, i'm thinking it makes more sense for Jason_at_intel and i to organize next week
463 18:28:22 <sgk> with a target of the conf. call the week following
464 18:28:23 <Jason_at_Intel> SO steve you will give me an e-mail?
465 18:28:38 <GregNoel> Maybe agenda in a spreadsheet, so we can note/comment in advance?
466 18:29:07 <sgk> GregNoel: good idea re: the spreadsheet, that's working well here
467 18:28:52 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: send me something on Monday to get the ball rolling
468 18:28:53 <garyo> Jason: it's still @ parts.tigris.org/... right?
469 18:29:02 <Jason_at_Intel> yep
470 18:29:15 <garyo> I have a note I'm supposed to review ConfigToolsandChainNotes there
471 18:31:13 <Jason_at_Intel> ya... reading the document i have would be nice start
472 18:31:22 <Jason_at_Intel> even if it a little out of date ina few places
473 18:29:07 <Jason_at_Intel> big update coming
474 18:29:29 <Jason_at_Intel> major reporting /coloring/logging overhaual
475 18:29:29 <sgk> Jason_at_intel: is Parts attracting many users?
476 18:29:50 <Jason_at_Intel> I get odd mails here and there .. have a few bugs
477 18:29:43 <garyo> sgk: I'd suggest a Wave but not everyone has it or knows how to use it
478 18:30:13 <GregNoel> A wave would be good, actually, maybe for the comments and notes?
479 18:30:05 <Jason_at_Intel> It is beta.. or not 1.x yet... so people are holding off
480 18:30:03 <bdbaddog> I have wave.
481 18:30:08 <bdbaddog> can invite everyone else..
482 18:30:09 <sgk> garyo: are you actively using wave?
483 18:30:18 <garyo> no, nobody else I know has it
484 18:30:21 <sgk> hmm
485 18:30:29 <garyo> a one-user wave is kinda lonely
486 18:31:10 <GregNoel> "Wave without a shore"
487 18:31:03 <sgk> i haven't had a good excuse to really try to use it
488 18:31:37 <bdbaddog> I don't see any of you guys in my wave contact list.
489 18:32:04 <garyo> how do I add you or vice versa?
490 18:32:09 <Jason_at_Intel> Is Wave any good?
491 18:32:16 <bdbaddog> I'm on as bdbaddog.at.gmail.com
492 18:32:17 <garyo> don't know yet
493 18:32:29 <bdbaddog> try adding me as a contact under wave.
494 18:32:29 <Jason_at_Intel> it seemed sort of in the works
495 18:32:41 <garyo> just did it
496 18:32:52 <garyo> I'm gary.oberbrunner.at.gmail.com
497 18:32:54 <sgk> bdbaddog: have you been using it regularly? how's the stability for you? in which browser?
498 18:33:04 <bdbaddog> haven't been, Firefox..
499 18:33:41 <bdbaddog> Grey, Jason, Steven, do you all have wave accounts?
500 18:34:08 <sgk> i do on my google account but not my external gmail account
501 18:34:18 <GregNoel> Grey===Greg? No, not a permanent one
502 18:35:02 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: oopsie...
503 18:34:26 <Jason_at_Intel> I need to be invited it says
504 18:34:39 <bdbaddog> email accouts for invites?
505 18:35:00 * sgk just realizes that his macbook pro is still running Firefox 2.0.x... :-/
506 18:35:01 <Jason_at_Intel> jasonk512.at.aol.com
507 18:35:19 <bdbaddog> aol.. really? ;)
508 18:35:52 <garyo> aol omg!
509 18:35:28 <Jason_at_Intel> it for the junk mail
510 18:35:26 <bdbaddog> just sent an invite 2 u.
511 18:35:29 <sgk> sweet
512 18:35:40 <bdbaddog> Steven - do you have an acct?
513 18:35:54 <sgk> bdbaddog: sure, add sguireknight.at.gmail.com
514 18:36:20 <bdbaddog> says "user does not have a wave account"
515 18:36:32 <sgk> oh, sorry, still need invite
516 18:36:53 <bdbaddog> done.
517 18:36:57 <bdbaddog> sgk: sent.
518 18:37:08 <bdbaddog> though it says the invites won't be sent immediately.
519 18:37:30 <garyo> I guess I don't have any invites to give out :-(
520 18:37:34 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: Did u neeed one?
521 18:37:35 <GregNoel> Try inviting gregnoel.at.tigris.org and see if it sends me one (eventually)...
522 18:37:37 <bdbaddog> I have 30 left.
523 18:37:54 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: added to invite list..
524 18:37:58 <bdbaddog> 29 left.
525 18:38:19 <garyo> cool, this should be fun. we'll learn something anyway.
526 18:38:27 <bdbaddog> k. I'm outta here for tonight. will be interesting to see if wave is useful for this.
527 18:38:41 <garyo> yup, me too, have to find out who won in MA special election.
528 18:39:01 <bdbaddog> GregNoel: Let Steven and/or I know the dates you'll be up if you'd like to get together when you're up..
529 18:39:22 <GregNoel> bdbaddog, wilco
530 18:39:03 <Jason_at_Intel> so have i been added?
531 18:39:07 * sgk gets a shoeshine while waiting for the invite to show up
532 18:39:47 <bdbaddog> Gnight all!
533 18:39:56 <sgk> bdbaddog: good night, thanx for the checkpoints
534 18:40:14 <Jason_at_Intel> bddaddog: night!
535 18:40:23 <garyo> see you folks on the ML...
536 18:40:26 * GregNoel has new mail...
537 18:41:18 <GregNoel> Hey, Rob is still around; he just corrected that spelling error
538 18:41:40 <garyo> GregNoel: good to know.
539 18:41:54 <garyo> anyway, time for bed I guess, here on the benighted east coast.
540 18:42:18 <garyo> take care folks, see you soon
541 18:42:25 <Jason_at_Intel> if you get a chance gary.. read that document :-)
542 18:42:25 * garyo (n=garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has left #scons
543 18:42:46 <sgk> good night. Geaux Saints!
544 18:43:22 <Jason_at_Intel> Night all.. till next time
545 18:43:50 <GregNoel> No invitation... I'll keep an eye out.
546 18:43:51 * Jason_at_Intel has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]")
547 18:43:57 <GregNoel> G'night all.
548 18:46:39 * You have been marked as being away
549 18:49:33 * loonycyborg has quit ("Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz")
550 18:49:45 * sgk (n=sgk@c-71-204-129-67.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has left #scons
551 18:51:22 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-11-120.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has left #scons
552
